Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

No Justins, No Peace

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

Speaker Mike Johnson is a vile traitor to the House and the Constitution.

How can republicans represent us when they don’t trust women?

It could be worse. Vance could have said “post-menopausal sows.” Waiting for that audiotape to surface.

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

Bark louder, little dog.

Elections aren’t won by handwringing, cowering, and/or bashing your own candidates.

“woke” is the new caravan.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

This isn’t Democrats spending madly. This is government catching up.

Republicans don’t trust women.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

“But what about the lurkers?”

You are here: Home / What Chait Said

What Chait Said

by | 463 Comments

This post is in: ,

This:

Without a doubt, Obama’s proposals would leave the health care system far short of what most progressives, myself included, would design in the absence of political constraints. But also without a doubt, it would lift the system far above the status quo that is the only near-term alternative. Here it is, the most dramatic improvement in social justice in at least four decades fighting for its life in the home stretch, and the left can barely be roused to fight for it. The somnolence is far from universal, but on the left there is at least as much passion against health care reform as for it. One of many considerations the vulnerable Democratic moderates who hold reform’s fate in their hands must balance is, in return for the limitless rage of the right, will they get any credit from the left for backing this reform? At the moment when every voice counts, when every ounce of pressure could prove decisive, here is FireDogLake:Lynn Woolsey says she’s a definite “yes” vote on the Senate health care bill. Even if it lacks a public option. Despite the fact that it’s the biggest blow to a woman’s right to choose in a generation, and may come at the price of a stand-alone vote that allows Blue Dogs and ConservaDems to join with Republicans and roll them back even further in order to get Bart Stupak’s support.

Any ability for progressives to negotiate, to achieve meaningful concessions, to exert their influence and make the bill better just disappeared.

It’s time for Lynn Woolsey to resign as the head of the Progressive Caucus.

Yes, that is what it is time for! One day, when progressives study this moment in history, they will evaluate all of us by this single standard: What did they do to stop Lynn Woolsey?

I’m just ready for Republicans to take over again and save us all from the threat that is Rahm Emanuel and Obama’s health care reform. We’ll just have to make sure we have bigger majorities in 2045 when we get another shot at this. Obama is so much like Bush that it won’t be much difference anyway, amirite?

And the five of you who are going to write me emails telling me you are done reading Balloon Juice because I am too mean to “progressives”- save your time. Stop being an idiot and I’ll stop being mean.

Reader Interactions

463Comments

  2. 2.

    geg6

    Well, since I think Rahm and FDL suck balls pretty much equally, I have no idea where I stand on the DLC/DFH continuum. I do know, however, that no matter how much I don’t like this particular HCR bill, it is better for many people than the status quo. So PTFB.

  5. 5.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    Elkins Act, Hepburn Act.

    By the way, who was head of the progressive caucus in 1903? Somebody fire that guy.

  6. 6.

    srv

    I, for one, wish there were more progressives like Richard Nixon and fewer like Ted Kennedy.

  7. 7.

    valdivia

    I read this whole article and thought it was excellent. i would have added a bit about the media but aside from that he said exactly what needed to be said.

    I am happy you linked to it John.

  8. 8.

    MagicPanda

    Uh, I read Balloon Juice because you and others call out BS like this for what it is. No need to stop being mean when it comes to pointing out the stupidity of shooting ourselves in the foot.

  9. 9.

    gwangung

    And the five of you who are going to write me emails telling me you are done reading Balloon Juice because I am too mean to “progressives”- save your time. Stop being an idiot and I’ll stop being mean.

    Um, folks want the same things, right? Just not agreeing on the tactics, right? Which means there’s no repudiation by anyone, right?

    I get so confooozed…

  10. 10.

    mcc

    Little note, if you want to be part of the solution, both OFA and MoveOn are right now asking for volunteer commitments/money for the final push for the health care reform bill (although since it looks like we’re going in to the final stretch now, I’m curious when those efforts are actually going to start…).

  11. 11.

    A Mom Anon

    Gack. I know it’s not my business,but I’m to the point now where I’d like to know what kind of insurance Hamsher has and how much money she makes/has in the bank. I know she’s battled the hell out of breast cancer and I totally get that she’s fierce on this topic for that reason,but not all of us come from the place of privledge she has. She’s not an expert on the workings of Congress and she’s not freaking helping progressives as a whole. It pisses me off that Progressive has now been trashed just like Liberal has been. Damn it. What is she hoping to accomplish by this nonsense?

  12. 12.

    slag

    @geg6:

    Well, since I think Rahm and FDL suck balls pretty much equally, I have no idea where I stand on the DLC/DFH continuum. I do know, however, that no matter how much I don’t like this particular HCR bill, it is better for many people than the status quo. So PTFB.

    Yes. Indeedy.

  13. 13.

    goblue72

    The so-called progressive left has been in a solid snit for the last 6 months like a Deadhead who’s supply of patchouli oil just ran out. Its like watching a NIMBY-fight at a Berkeley City Council meeting. A bunch of holier-than-thou lefty assf*&ks holding their breath till they turn blue unless Obama personally wipes their butts with organic cotton recyclable, smug-scented toiler paper.

    Can we just Free Mumia already so they’ll go home and shut the eff up?

  14. 14.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    I’m all for mocking the ‘baggers, because I think they represent one of the reasons Democrats have such a hard time getting things done, and even moreso because their kind of preening self-importance is something that should always be mocked, regardless of politics. And Republicans are big giant assholes. But even more than the ‘baggers and the preening purists (has St Dennis announced whether or not he’ll vote for the Senate bill?) and asshole ‘wingers, the problem here is less those groups than Dems who either have no idea what’s in the bill and/or are afraid to get out and sell it because of polls. Chait doesn’t mention the Acuris and Webbs and the Lincolns and the McCaskills at all. Also, he mentions the press, in the corporate person of the Kaplan Daily Hiatt almost as an afterthought. I’d put them in line right behind the Dummies.

  15. 15.

    DonBelacquaDelPurgatorio

    And the five of you who are going to write me emails telling me you are done reading Balloon Juice because I am too mean to “progressives”- save your time. Stop being an idiot and I’ll stop being mean.

    Just because most latter-day internet “progressives” don’t know the difference between advocacy and thuggery is no reason for you to be so cruel to them, John.

    Tsk.

  16. 16.

    GOVCHRIS1988

    And the five of you who are going to write me emails telling me you are done reading Balloon Juice because I am too mean to “progressives”- save your time. Stop being an idiot and I’ll stop being mean.

    I agree with this, full stop. Its the same thing with DKOS and this Eric Massa shit. They seem to have forgotten that this guy has told conflicting accounts about why he is resigning. First, it was because of allegations of sexual harassment. Then, it was for illness. Now, hes going on Glenn Beck to tell everyone that the WH and Democratic Leadership pushed him out because of the Health Care vote. Some on the DKOS board are rallying behind Massa and saying that it is Rahm’s fault again. Its really getting damned old how everything is Rahm Emmanuel’s fault. Don’t get me wrong, on some things in Washington, he has his fingerprints over, but I don’t think Rahm told Massa to whisper a lewd comment in a staffers ear.

  17. 17.

    cleek

    f that whiny bratty Hamsher and her suicide cult of progressive purity.

    her vision of what the Democratic party should and can be is so far from reality that it makes one question her sanity.

  18. 18.

    Corner Stone

    @goblue72:

    with organic cotton recyclable, smug-scented toiler paper

    This intrigues me. What does smug smell like, one wonders?

  19. 19.

    Jon

    Politics is the art of the possible. If you want dreams to come true, major in theater.

  20. 20.

    danimal

    PTDB.

    One of the most irritating parts of the conservative world is their failure to rein in their idiots. Idiot right wingers spout off their idiocy and no one on the right stops them. The Liz Cheney McCarthyite smear is the exception proving the rule.

    Cole, you’re doing us a service by being mean to the firebaggers.

  22. 22.

    FormerSwingVoter

    Why are you punching hippies? Just because real progressives are trying to defeat the most progressive legislation in decades, that doesn’t mean you should call them out on their being complete incompetent self-defeating shitbags. That’s just hippie-punching!

    Ima cry about the hippie punching! Stop punching the hippies! Waaaaaaaaaaah!

  23. 23.

    Corner Stone

    and the left can barely be roused to fight for it. The somnolence is far from universal, but on the left there is at least as much passion against health care reform as for it.

    I guess my question is – do you feel it’s a viable position to maintain that this bill is a not very good bill and should not be passed with the Democratic imprimatur?

    To be clear – can someone on the left side of the spectrum just not want this bill to pass, or is that not an acceptable notion?

  24. 24.

    Lev

    I don’t think it’s Hamsher per se, so much as it is the “blogger-activist” model of activism. People who seize onto small things and use them to turn out an angry tirade about betrayal, villainy and incompetence generally make excellent bloggers but terrible activists. There’s a perspective thing that bloggers often don’t have that’s necessary to being an effective activist.

  25. 25.

    Corner Stone

    @Jon:

    Politics is the art of the possible.

    Just once I’d like one of you possibility majors to pre-emptively define what “possible” is – *before* the outcome is well formed. So we can all see this at work.

  27. 27.

    cat48

    Chait forgot my favorite part of the rant:

    Of those, 1734 people donated $5,613 to Lynn Woolsey.
    Is she ready to give that money back if she goes back on her promise to vote “no” on any bill that doesn’t have a public option? Because a poll determined that 90% of our readers think that she should.
    Furthermore, 76% of our readers think that members of Congress who go back on that pledge should face primary challenges (the filing deadline for California is March 12). And a full 82.3% think that anyone who votes to restrict a woman’s right to choose, as the Senate bill does, should face a primary challenge too.

    I think the game is almost over when it comes to hcr. The prez asked for help pushing it thru by having folks contact Washington. Do or die time before Easter break…….

  28. 28.

    David in NY

    I just wish that they’d pass the damn bill because six months after they do, my son, who will graduate from college in May and, at least temporarily it appears, join the ranks of the uninsured and unemployed, will be covered under my insurance policy until he’s 26 or gets his own insurance. That would be really, really nice.

    So get cracking, Congress!

  29. 29.

    Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan

    “holding their breath till they turn blue unless Obama personally wipes their butts with organic cotton recyclable, smug-scented toiler paper.”

    Hey, that’s a totally ridiculous statement.

    Scenting the toilet paper with synthetic smug pheromones would be bad for firebaggers with chemical sensitivities. They’re going to have to be naturally-derived organic plant extracts of smug grown by Native American transgendered shamen.

  30. 30.

    Pangloss

    That 2044 election is going to provide the Progressive landslide that eluded TR, FDR, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, and Obama. THEN you’ll see that the Progressives were right all along. Uh, if you’re not dead or bankrupt by then….

  31. 31.

    willf

    Lynn Woolsey needs to step down as CPC co chair.

    She is incompetent at her job, we need another fighter like Grijalva in there.

    I’m sure she’s a perfectly nice person, but she’s too much the stereotypical wooly-headed liberal. We need a real fighter in that spot.

    Woolsey should step down.

  33. 33.

    FormerSwingVoter

    @Corner Stone:

    To be clear – can someone on the left side of the spectrum just not want this bill to pass, or is that not an acceptable notion?

    If you can explain how getting none of what you want could possibly be preferable to getting some of what you want, then sure. Otherwise, you’re retarded.

    Defeating progressive legislation because you didn’t get a pet unicorn out of the deal doesn’t make you more progressive somehow – it makes you a spoiled, worthless infant who is of no use to anyone.

  34. 34.

    fasteddie

    I understand their frustration, but didn’t they ever learn “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good”? If you have to hold out for perfect or nothing, you’re going to get nothing EVERY FREAKING TIME.

    If you are really a progressive – you will get back to work to get this passed. And then go to work to get this improved. Keep fixing it. Unless you think you have the votes to either get amend or get a new constitution, this is the system we have. Deal with it.

    Get back to work. in 2011 we can try for Medicare for everyone, once the boogeyman of “socialized medicine” is shown to be a cute puppy.

    Rome wasn’t built in a day.

  35. 35.

    Dollared

    Sorry gang, I’m not a fan of Chait’s article and not a fan of the collective hippie-bash here.

    Let’s recognize right here and now that if Obama had really threatened the world with giving Jane her way, we’d have a lot better bill. And it would be signed. And we’d be on to financial reform.

    Pissed off progressives are all about Obama’s deal-rather-than-fight orientation, and his unwillingness to name Republicans as the truly evil demons they are.

    And let’s recognize that we are going to lose 3M jobs/year to Asia, f-o-r-e-v-e-r, as long as we have such high health care costs, nailed like a boat anchor to the cost of labor.

    There is a lot at stake. Obama has really not handled this well. The Republicans have gotten away with murder. 18% of our working people are not working full time when they want to.

    You bet I want to PTDB. But I’m sick of the hippie punching, especially when Chait is punching all of us, rather than pointing out that Jane is a tiny minority of progressives.

    And note that Chait is doing the equivalence thing – Move-on is the same as Mitch McConnell and Glenn Beck.

    Sorry, I agree, PTDB. But Chait should reserve his punching for the people who really deserve it.

  36. 36.

    Lev

    @willf: Grijalva is sort of the perfect firebagger leader. Literally the only thing he ever talks about in his statements on HCR is passing a public option–which effectively means something that could be called a “public option” rather than anything in particular. He’s a fighter–for ideological goals that aren’t the point of this debate and never were.

  37. 37.

    Ana Gama

    @mcc:

    Little note, if you want to be part of the solution, both OFA and MoveOn are right now asking for volunteer commitments/money for the final push

    Okay, I just gave both $25. Anyone care to match me?

  38. 38.

    Tax Analyst

    @Corner Stone:

    Just once I’d like one you possibility majors to pre-emptively define what “possible” is – before the outcome is well formed. So we can all see this at work.

    Well, for a start it would be something that is, considering the voting dynamics of the respective houses, is not on it’s face “impossible”. I think we’ve seen that sometimes it is not possible to know that ahead of time.

    But your pony could be flying out of your ass any moment now so be sure to keep checking, OK?

  39. 39.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @Allan:

    Being mean to firebaggers does not equal being mean to progressives.

    But dude, Hamsherites aren’t progressive. They are”give me it all today or the dem party gets it”. They take no prisoners and love the smell of Obot in the morning. They also don’t surf and wear puma underwear. I read that somewhere. Well, maybe not. but.

  40. 40.

    4tehlulz

    or is that not an acceptable notion?

    It’s acceptable only if you believe that continuing denials based on pre-existing conditions is an acceptable price for walking away from this bill.

    Which makes you a Republican, not a progressive.

  41. 41.

    CT Voter

    @FormerSwingVoter:

    If you can explain how getting none of what you want could possibly be preferable to getting some of what you want, then sure.

    But getting none is preferable to some. We can start over, and get a better version. Medicare for all. A robust public option.

    Because, of course, Republican opposition will be SO MUCH LESS AFTER THEY’VE SUCCESSFULLY scuttled HCR.

    Morans.

  42. 42.

    scarshapedstar

    Can somebody please explain to me why the abortion ban is something that progressives just have to swallow?

    What if Stupak also stuck in a federal gay marriage ban, a poll tax, and a repeal of the Clean Water Act? Just how many times must the left be ritually humiliated before people will say that we are not the problem here?

    Here’s my Solomonic compromise: take the stupid fucking abortion ban out, bring it up for a vote, and then let Stupid Stupak and his dirty dozen decide if they really want to be the most reviled members of the caucus for the short remainder of their careers. Their choice.

  43. 43.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @Dollared:

    Let’s recognize right here and now that if Obama had really threatened the world with giving Jane her way, we’d have a lot better bill. And it would be signed. And we’d be on to financial reform.

    That’s just great, let’s put her in charge then, man.

  44. 44.

    Genine

    Is the health care bill perfect? No, but it’s better than the alternative.

    Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

    Once this hurdle is crossed, there is time to make improvements. The way things are going Firebaggers would have been against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the original Social Security act and the original medicare.

    We need something in place and we need it now.

  45. 45.

    slag

    @Corner Stone:

    To be clear – can someone on the left side of the spectrum just not want this bill to pass, or is that not an acceptable notion?

    As someone who has been about as frustrated as I can be with Democrats over several aspects of this bill–from process to policy–I will say without reservation that it is not in liberals’ interests for this bill to go down. It’s just not. Policy and politics-wise, this bill needs to pass. And any liberal/progressive who doesn’t grasp that concept isn’t thinking very clearly. It’s that simple.

  46. 46.

    John Cole

    @willf: Oh, fucking bullshit. Grijalva is widely regarded as dumb as a sack of hammers, but his upside is that he is doing whatever the FDLer’s want when they want him to:

    This isn’t about Woolsey’s incompetence, it is about getting her out of the way. It is little more than a transparent power play.

  48. 48.

    gbear

    @geg6:

    If I had to pick sides, I’d pick the side that isn’t working with Grover Nordquist.

    In a second.

  49. 49.

    willf

    jesus fucking tits,

    “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”

    You know, I first heard that phrase in regard to why we should go for a public option vs single payer.

    Then I heard it again when it was decided that we couldn’t have a PO that reimbursed at medicare rates, then again when the PO was watered down even further. Ditto on having Medicare bargain with drug companies , that was too perfect, so we had to go for drug reimportation – another idea pushed by centrist democrats – but apparently that was too perfect, so it had to go as well.

    Again and again, as this bill was watered down from actual reform to nothing more than a bailout for drug and insurance companies, I heard that stupid phrase.

    Well, guess what? There’s no more “good” in the bill. Those wanting to kill it are actually making what was kind of “good” be the enemy of the horribly shitty.

    For fuck’s sake let’s retire that stupid phrase.

  50. 50.

    CT Voter

    @Dollared: But I’m sick of the hippie punching, especially when Chait is punching all of us, rather than pointing out that Jane is a tiny minority of progressives.

    That’s fair.

    And you’re right about the false equivalency issue.

  51. 51.

    mr. whipple

    (has St Dennis announced whether or not he’ll vote for the Senate bill?

    He said he was leaning against the other day on Cspan, because, he said, the senate bill didn’t have a PO.

    Yet, he voted against the House bill that did have a PO.

    He’s holding out for his single payer pony and insurance company nationalization.

  53. 53.

    Guster

    @Dollared: You said it all, better’n I would have.

    I’ve got a silly question, though. Is this actually a fact? “It’s the biggest blow to a woman’s right to choose in a generation …”

    Because if that’s actually true it’d kinda be nice to engage with even such evil villains as Jane Hamsher on the facts.

  54. 54.

    BTD

    What is hilarious about this post is there is not a gettable progressive pol who is actually holding up passage of the bill.

    Jane Hamsher (and progressives for that matter) has long ceased to be relevant to the passage of the health bill.

    Unless Cole thinks Hamsher is holding Stupak hostage, the idiot (John’s word) in this discussion happens to be John Cole, Jon Chait and every one who seems to think Jane Hamsher is in any way relevant right now.

    There may have been a time when this hippie punching had some semblance of coherence, but that time is long past. For crissakes, Woolsey and Grijalva are voting for the bill.

    The problem is Stupak, Altmire, Tanner and Co.

    What a dumb post.

  55. 55.

    mr. whipple

    @willf:

    There’s a lot of good for 30 million that are uninsured, as well as those that already have insurance.

    Like me.

    So, DIAF.

  56. 56.

    demo woman

    Why don’t you just go back to the GOP thugs if you dislike internal argument so much?

    WTF?
    I’m not even sure what this means.
    Is the bill perfect, no! Will the bill prevent insurance companies from dropping the sick, yes! Will millions of uninsured be covered, yes! The bill is the anti-gop bill. If the gop sweeps and the bill does not pass. be prepared to have all regulation on the health insurance company dropped. By the way, the GOP will name their bill, Saving the America’s Health.

  57. 57.

    rootless-e

    “Let’s recognize right here and now that if Obama had really threatened the world with giving Jane her way, we’d have a lot better bill. And it would be signed. And we’d be on to financial reform.”

    Why the fuck should we recognize something that’s obviously false?

  58. 58.

    Joseph Nobles

    I consider myself a progressive (and a democratic socialist even from what I understand of Orwell’s self-description) and I say pass the damn bill. What part of “we can pass a public option to go into the damn exchanges” do these voices on the left not understand? Jiminy.

  59. 59.

    me

    @Dollared: Wishful thinking. The Nelsons of the Senate would wipe their asses with anything Hamsher approves of and they know she would never get her way so threats are useless. Unless the filibuster disappears, Jane will not get what she wants.

  60. 60.

    freelancer

    Without a doubt, Obama’s proposals would leave the health care system far short of what most progressives, myself included, would design in the absence of political constraints. But also without a doubt, it would lift the system far above the status quo that is the only near-term alternative.

    Defeating progressive legislation because you didn’t get a pet unicorn out of the deal doesn’t make you more progressive somehow – it makes you a spoiled, worthless infant who is of no use to anyone.

    To continue my ongoing jihad against C&L’s Susie Madrak, I wonder what she has written today:

    Honestly, at this point, I don’t even care whether or not this crappy healthcare bill passes. I see so many serious problems with it, and I simply do not have any trust in the integrity of the Obama administration and the commercially-sponsored Congress to fix them.
    …
    The only reason I can see for supporting the bill is political – and no, I don’t think that’s an insignificant reason.

    Fucking idiot.

    ETA: Btw, don’t even bother with the comments, that whole thread is fucking insane.

  63. 63.

    willf

    Bullshit yourself John.

    Grijalva was the one responsible for the “progressive block” on the bill coming out of the House w/o a PO. Before he became co-chair, the CPC was wasting all it’s time on something called the shadow budget, which supposedly showed where spending priorities would be different if they ran the congress.

    That’s it, they really honest to god wasted lots of time on it, every session of congress.

    Grijalva was the first Rep. in a long while to try and turn this glass-bead gaming society into an actual political bloc. Woolsey has done fuck-all to try and push for actual progressive legislation.

    We need a stronger co-chair than Woolsey.

  64. 64.

    fourlegsgood

    Amen.

    To be clear – can someone on the left side of the spectrum just not want this bill to pass, or is that not an acceptable notion?

    In my opinion, no, it’s not an acceptable position. Not when you have to know that it might be 20 years before we get another shot at this and that 45,000 people a year die (a number that is sure to grow) because they don’t have access to health care.

    Grow up – you aren’t going to get a pony this year. But help us buy the paddock and we’ll try again next year.

  65. 65.

    West of the Cascades

    Premise: Jane is nuts and has jumped the shark. Suggesting that Woolsey resign as head of the Progressive Caucus is insane.

    But, despite this, I think there’s one possible nugget of wisdom in her otherwise insane position – that maybe it was too early, even in the end game, for Woolsey to declare she is a “definite yes” vote – holding out a while may have been a better negotiating tactic to get a better reconciliation bill while the two houses are coming up with what that will look like.

    But even as I write that I realize I don’t believe it – it’s really just time for all the Democrats to PTDB, and so actually it’s good Woolsey came out strongly in support and there’s no merit to anything Jane said.

  66. 66.

    Ash Can

    John, don’t ever stop being mean. If more people were mean the way you are, this world would be a better place.

  67. 67.

    gwangung

    Again and again, as this bill was watered down from actual reform to nothing more than a bailout for drug and insurance companies, I heard that stupid phrase.

    We can retire “perfect is enemy of the good” when we also retire “bailout for drug and insurance companies.”

  68. 68.

    willf

    @mr. whipple:

    Your assumption that I’m just wallowing in the cadillac coverage is amusing, but ultimately beside the point.

    What’s the point of forcing people to buy junky health insurance when what they need is actual health care?

  69. 69.

    The Moar You Know

    Kneecapping a moderate Democratic president, his cabinet, his Congressional majority and his health care reform is a great idea. His so-called “reform” bill lacks a public option AND ponies, and I don’t see why we should have to stand for such a half-assed piece of legislation.

    Here is where the glory of our two-party system comes into play; you can just vote for the more liberal party and get an even better health care bill, so I don’t really see what all the fuss is about.

    The other party is more liberal, right?

  70. 70.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    What is hilarious about this post is there is not a gettable progressive pol who is actually holding up passage of the bill.

    “gettable”? By that standard, there wasn’t a “gettable” Senate Blue Dog who held up the PO in the Senate. So we shouldn’t criticize Nelson and Lincoln?

    Jane Hamsher […] has long ceased to be relevant to the passage of the health bill.

    That, as edited, I agree with.

  71. 71.

    BTD

    @mr. whipple:

    Massa may or may not resign today and is certainly not gettable and I am pretty confident Hamsher has nothing to do with it.

    Grijalva is a yes vote. The President already got him and Woolsey last week. Where the hell are you people getting your news?

    As for Kaptur, she is a Stupak person, not a Hamsher person.

    May I suggest that your ire is being misfired.

    Progressives have already been rolled.

    You may want to try this “the beatings will continue until morale improves” strategy on actual fucking No votes on the bills.

  72. 72.

    beergoggles

    If u can somehow drum up the firebaggers to turn up and vote in the midterms to keep democrats in power, then by all means keep ranting. Otherwise ur just not being productive by providing cover for hippie punching.

  75. 75.

    rootless-e

    @BTD: What actually is hilarious is the duplicicity of “progressive” bloggers who at the same time claim to be powerful but not responsible for anything.

    If the “progressives” had acted like allies instead of children who had too much sugar, they could have had at least some influence improving the discussion. Instead, they’ve just done what they could to reinforce Luntz themes.

  76. 76.

    JenJen

    Last night on the drive home to Chicago, I listened to “The Young Turks” on sat-rad telling me it’s better to be selfish about the health care you already have and hope it can be improved for all those poor folks who don’t have it, sometime in the mythical future, than even think about Passing TFB. And you’re all a bunch of fucking sellouts if you think otherwise. Also, Rahm touched me in an inappropriate manner and I just haven’t come to terms with it yet.

    It was one pissy road trip, I’m here to tell you. At least I know enough to change the station when Lynn Samuels comes on the so-called “Sirius Left” channel.

  77. 77.

    mr. whipple

    @willf:

    What’s the point of forcing people to buy junky health insurance when what they need is actual health care?

    That isn’t policy, or results, it’s a slogan. And not a very good one, either.

  79. 79.

    Ailuridae

    @willf:

    Again and again, as this bill was watered down from actual reform to nothing more than a bailout for drug and insurance companies, I heard that stupid phrase.

    It is impossible to argue coherently that this bill is a bailout to insurance companies when:

    1. They are profitable. Unprofitable, nearly bankrupt companies need to be bailed out.
    2. The current state of affairs where there is cap on money that can go from employers to insurance companies untaxed is allowing a huge portion of our nation’s GDP to be consumed by health care. The current health care tax provisions are nothing more than a giveaway to insurance companies. Its impossible to argue that finally taxing that income for the first time ever qualifies as a give away.

    Well, guess what? There’s no more “good” in the bill. Those wanting to kill it are actually making what was kind of “good” be the enemy of the horribly shitty.

    This is particularly fucking stupid. Half of the bill is an expansion of Medicaid. So unless we are deciding that providing insurance to people who are under the actual poverty line isn’t progressive at least half of the bill is a huge progressive achievement. One can argue the rest of the bill’s contents.

  81. 81.

    BTD

    @rootless-e:

    I suppose that is aimed at Hamsher because I know I claim to be powerless, and am pretty sure that claim is verifiable.

    But Hamsher is powerless now. Does anyone doubt it?

    This is all just senseless Hamsher punching now.

    You should admit that.

  82. 82.

    demo woman

    After reading the blog, I have determined that if the President were God, Superman, Robert Murdoch, or the Hulk, the bill would have passed February, 2009. Instead he is the President and left it to Congress to make law (yeah he is a constitutional scholar) and look what happened. Now it’s time to pout, throw up arms, not ever vote for another dem and call everyone names. Yeah, that will work.

  83. 83.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @John Cole:

    Here is my take. I do not have a problem with a few house progs agitating to get better bills, not only HCR, and I do not put that many House progs in Grijalva camp. But there comes a point, and we are past that, where the worm only can turn one more time, or we get nothing. And in the end, I have said it before, at least with this particular bill, what we are seeing is posturing for all sorts of reasons for individual reps to sooth the natives back home, both left and right. They will not, and Grijalva will not, in the end, can this bill, it is the dem Holy Grail of policy and not even a dimwit like Mr. Grijalva believes any different. The bill will pass by a whisker, and those needing the most cover will vote no.

    The vast majority of House progressives are really progressives and know the rules and the score in the end, and will take what is available, when there is no other alternative. They will not let 30 million peeps go uncovered with HI, because they are human persons with sanity.

    However, Too Many of our internet type progs are horses of different colors.

  84. 84.

    tc125231

    Well, we should pass the health bill. As is. It’s stupid to be against it. Even if it could clearly have been better.

    The idea that “Emo John” has the right to be mean to anyone on the basis of comparative rationality, however, is most droll.

  85. 85.

    BTD

    @rootless-e:

    This strikes me as funny:

    “If the “progressives” had acted like allies instead of children who had too much sugar, they could have had at least some influence improving the discussion. Instead, they’ve just done what they could to reinforce Luntz themes.”

    Are you saying Obama would have produced a better bill if “progressives” had behaved better? That this is Obama punishing progressives for unruly behavior?

    Wow.

  86. 86.

    rootless-e

    I like BTD’s defense of Hamsher – basically she’s irrelevant, so don’t waste your time.

    But I don’t think she’s irrelevant. If FDL was focusing half as much time on getting rid of Pitts as it has on dumping Rahm and then Sanders and now Woolsey, it would be doing something useful and productive instead of demoralizing the public.

  87. 87.

    Darkmoth

    @Dollared:

    Let’s recognize right here and now that if Obama had really threatened the world with giving Jane her way, we’d have a lot better bill

    .

    Absolutely true

    And it would be signed

    Not unless you have some other Senate in your back pocket.

  88. 88.

    DarrenG

    @willf: Serious question: Do you really think the health insurance provided to 31 million Americans who don’t presently have any is worthless, or counter-productive?

    What about the end of recission, lifetime caps, and discrimination based on pre-existing conditions for the couple hundred million of us with insurance coverage? Or the 85% minimum medical loss ratio?

  90. 90.

    rootless-e

    “Are you saying Obama would have produced a better bill if “progressives” had behaved better? That this is Obama punishing progressives for unruly behavior?”

    No. I’m saying we’d have had a chance for a better bill if “progressives” had pushed Congress for a better bill instead of trying to discredit the Administration.

  91. 91.

    slag

    @willf:

    Funny how only the peeps attacking the bill from the left get all the hate.

    Well, since I’ve personally read no fewer than three posts on this blog directly attacking Bart Stupak, I can’t answer this question.

  92. 92.

    gwangung

    We can retire “bailout for drug and insurance companies” as soon as the bill stops being exactly that.

    Then you’re letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    That said, I admire your passion for the issue. I’m just less certain that your tactics can get us from “here” to “there.”

  94. 94.

    BillCinSD

    I still don’t get how fighting to the end for what you think is right is a bad thing. But I guess since John has declared that this is the best possible bill we can get anybody wanting better is just a fool or a tool or something else that rhymes.

    Sure, the abortion recriminalizers are at least as big a threat to passage, but they are acting out of religious principles so can only be half-heartedly mocked, and will likely get what they want because they will stick to their guns as they don’t care. I could only find 3 posts on Stupak since November and none since February 2– 3 posts is what a week or less of hippy punching on Balloon Juice. Is it irony to bash people nominally on your side for bashing people nominally on your side?

    But what do I know, I’m still waiting for those side labor agreements to improve NAFTA that Clinton promised

  95. 95.

    freelancer

    Okay, I don’t know how exactly they disintegrate so quickly, but I can no longer rationally discuss lefties who want to torpedo their hallmark issue legislation because we aren’t going to get exactly what Canada has RFN.

    Fuck this thread.

  96. 96.

    willf

    @mr. whipple:

    That isn’t policy, or results, it’s a slogan. And not a very good one, either.

    Well, that’s what the DNC is running on in 2010. Forcing people to buy crappy overpriced health insurance from corporations that should rightfully be regulated like the old trusts.

    Doesn’t sound like a winner to me, either, but I didn’t write the damn bill.

  97. 97.

    rootless-e

    @BTD: – u might also want to become familiar with how bills are “produced” in the US system of government. It’s not up the President to “produce” a bill, especially not a Democratic President who lacks the mechanisms of consent manufacturing that are available to Republican Presidents.

  98. 98.

    BTD

    @rootless-e:

    It seemed to me that most of the ire was fired at Congress. But maybe I misremembered.

    But my view was that Obama was not opposed to a more progressive bill, but that he was letting the Congress decide.

    He would step in as necessary to clinch the deal. Which he has done, at least the stepping in part.

    Still got Stupak to deal with.

  99. 99.

    demo woman

    Well, we should pass the health bill. As is. It’s stupid to be against it. Even if it could clearly have been better.The idea that “Emo John” has the right to be mean to anyone on the basis of comparative rationality, however, is most droll.

    The House of Representatives has a chance to pass the bill and yes I want them to vote for it. Could have, should have at this point does not matter. I can not wait forty years for a better bill. Sorry..

  100. 100.

    JenJen

    @BillCinSD:

    But I guess since John has declared that this is the best possible bill we can get anybody wanting better is just a fool or a tool or something else that rhymes.

    Seriously? Are you actually arguing that John is the one who is “declaring” this? Of course we all want something better, but pointing out political realities isn’t exactly the same as a “this is what I want and what we should do” manifesto.

  101. 101.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    @BTD:

    What a dumb post.

    This.

    But ya gotta give the retards what the retards want and the retards wanna babble incoherently about Hamsher.

  102. 102.

    BTD

    @rootless-e:

    Yeah, yeah – the Impotent President.

    Interestingly enough, the Constitution survived the President’s proposing of a budget.

  103. 103.

    Lev

    @willf: Right, because there’s no insurance company regulation in HCR.

    Ugh. There is legislation pending to revoke the health insurance antitrust exemption. Agitate on that if it bothers you so much.

  104. 104.

    mcc

    @John Cole: Methinks you’re a little too hasty to condemn Grijalva here. That video was from December 10 of last year. Things were different in December for a number of reasons. This is from last Thursday:

    Speaking to reporters in the Speaker’s lobby off the House floor, Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said the President reminded them that “If this opportunity passes, much of our agenda, on the progressive side…it would be difficult, if not impossible for a generation to get back to this issue.” I asked if the message was convincing to those in attendance. “It’s pretty compelling,” Grijalva said.

    And also from last thursday:

    But after getting assurances from the president that he would support legislation in the future to establish a public option and narrow health disparities, Grijalva said that he and his caucus members were inclined to vote for the Senate’s bill. “It’s becoming that way,” he said, speaking to reporters just off the House floor.

  105. 105.

    Darkmoth

    Shorter BTD:

    Ignore the little people. They are worth neither praise nor criticism.

    That reminds me of a great article by Gle…wait, he’s powerless, never mind.

  106. 106.

    willf

    @gwangung:

    I apologize, but it seems that no one has a path to get to “there”.

    The folks saying “if HCR doesn’t pass, then it’ll be 20 years blah blah” haven’t clued in yet that it’ll be just as long if the bill does pass, not to mention that the worst actors in this farce will be immeasurably stronger the next time we try to fix healthcare in the US.

  108. 108.

    mr. whipple

    Well, we should pass the health bill. As is. It’s stupid to be against it. Even if it could clearly have been better.

    Even moreso, it should be celebrated if it passes, and not be accepted as a defeat of any sort.

    It’s going to do huge things to help people. It’s the result of people trying to get this done since freaking Teddy Roosevelt. It’s freaking huge.

  110. 110.

    Dr. Morpheus

    @scarshapedstar: Stupak’s amendment isn’t in the Senate bill, which what is under consideration in the House.

    Nor is it in the President’s recommendations.

    Nor can it be in the Reconciliation bill.

    THERE IS NO ABORTION BAN IN HCR!!

    Sorry, just blowing a gasket over some of the mis/disinformation out in the Left these days.

  111. 111.

    joes527

    Jane is hanging up the bill?

    I guess that she is easier to punch than reality, but the bill is dying on the abortion issue. (and no, not even on progressive intransigence over abortion)

    Unless something changes, it isn’t getting out of the House w/o Stupak language. (we knew this last November) *That* kind of change probably isn’t do-able via reconciliation, so the Senate would have to deal with cloture. At that point it is all over.

    So …. Yeah. Let’s rag on those fucking progressive bloggers.

  113. 113.

    rootless-e

    @BTD: facts are stubborn things. Clinton and Carter and even Harry Truman failed to get as far as Obama has. Why can’t you do better than the rhetorical trick of “refuting” a statement that the President does not “produce” bills by pretending that this would only be correct if the President had no power at all?

  115. 115.

    willf

    @Lev:

    That’s in the House bill, not the Senate bill, nor in Obama’s offered compromise version of the bill.

    The Senate bill says nothing about repealing McCarran/Ferguson, and the Senate bill is the “DB” in “PTDB”, so, if the Senate bill passes, the anti-trust exemption stays.

  116. 116.

    willf

    And when the fuck did Chait become a progressive? I thought he was a “New Democrat” or a 3rd way neoliberal wanker.

  117. 117.

    BTD

    @rootless-e:

    That’s a different point.

    Your phrasing is actually the tell — “Clinton and Carter and even Harry Truman failed to get as far as Obama has.”

    So who exactly has gotten this far? The Congress or the President?

    You are now splitting threads – the President has the power to propose legislation and try to influence the legislative outcome. You first pretended that thinking that was somehow an affront to the Constitution.

    Now you accept that it is actually pretty much SOP.

  119. 119.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @BTD: when she stays off of the teevee, then I agree. You go on the boob tube to create “there’s discord in the dem party memes”, when actually it’s a tiny portion of the party she represents, then you better be ready for return fire and ridicule. She stays off of teevee, and I could care less what she blogs.

  120. 120.

    BTD

    @willf:

    It was offered recently in a Stand Alone bill passed by the House if memory serves.

    Now the Senate will act on it when Godot shows up.

  122. 122.

    BillCinSD

    @JenJen: maybe it wasn’t John, but one of the Balloon Juice writers said that the Senate bill was the best bill that could have been passed.

  124. 124.

    thejoz

    I am not going to lie, 6 months ago I was in the “kill the bill” crowd.

    But the more I keep hearing, the more firmly I have become into the “PTDB” crowd.

    At this rate, we have to pass this, and then we can focus all of our energies on things like Medicare for All. Getting more progressives and liberals into Congress and getting rid of backstabbing DINO’s like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, etc.

    I definitely want a PO or Medicare “Part E” or something. And I am not going to lie, I think there is zero reason for a vote on the Public Option to not come up as, say, an amendment to the Senate bill.

    …But to kill the bill now, fire a sold-out Congressperson now…

    It’s really turning me off, that’s for damn sure.

    John has become my new favorite blogger for stuff like this. Might have to stop visiting FDL at all if this keeps up.

  125. 125.

    thejoz

    I am not going to lie, 6 months ago I was in the “kill the bill” crowd.

    But the more I keep hearing, the more firmly I have become into the “PTDB” crowd.

    At this rate, we have to pass this, and then we can focus all of our energies on things like Medicare for All. Getting more progressives and liberals into Congress and getting rid of backstabbing DINO’s like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, etc.

    I definitely want a PO or Medicare “Part E” or something. And I am not going to lie, I think there is zero reason for a vote on the Public Option to not come up as, say, an amendment to the Senate bill.

    …But to kill the bill now, fire a sold-out Congressperson now…

    It’s really turning me off, that’s for damn sure.

    John has become my new favorite blogger for stuff like this. Might have to stop visiting FDL at all if this keeps up.

  126. 126.

    slag

    @BTD:

    See, you think Hamsher is powerful.
    __
    I do not.

    I actually agree with this. And maybe it’s my belief in the Magical Unity Pony talking, but I feel like there’s a very specific reason Jane Hamsher isn’t powerful. And it’s the same reason John Cole isn’t powerful. Nobody’s playing teams here. Instead, we’re just bitching back and forth about who started what. It’s counterproductive and frustrating as hell. But it looks like that’s just how it’s going to be.

  127. 127.

    demo woman

    @willf: FYI, the house has already passed a separate anti-trust bill. It passed with only 6 reps in opposition. The Senate should be able to address this separately. I can’t imagine the uproar if the repubs tried to block it.

  128. 128.

    mr. whipple

    Sure, the abortion recriminalizers are at least as big a threat to passage, but they are acting out of religious principles so can only be half-heartedly mocked,

    Sorry, I gotta disagree on this. People like Kaptur fear the Catholic Church, and are unwilling to make a case for the greater good over the abortion fixation. Screw the bishops.

  129. 129.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @willf:

    The folks saying “if HCR doesn’t pass, then it’ll be 20 years blah blah” haven’t clued in yet that it’ll be just as long if the bill does pass, not to mention that the worst actors in this farce will be immeasurably stronger the next time we try to fix healthcare in the US.

    I disagree. The problem isn’t the worst actors getting stronger, it’s the worst actors–the Blue Dogs, the Dummies and the Cowards– getting weaker, more frightened. When this bill passes, and the sky doesn’t fall, and we aren’t all wearing Mao suits, driving Trabants and calling each other Comrade, and the economy is a little better, and the bill is even popular, it won’t be so hard to sell further reform. If it doesn’t pass, it will solidify the image of Dems as incompetent and ineffectual, people like Webb and McCaskill will run to the right, former Senator Blanche Lincoln will be on Fox and Hardball telling everyone that she tried to warn us. David Broder will declare that Obama wasn’t bipartisan enough, etc etc. IMHO.

    Republicans aren’t warning that this bill will spell doom for the Democrats because they want what’s best for the Democratic Party, or the country.

  130. 130.

    gwangung

    The folks saying “if HCR doesn’t pass, then it’ll be 20 years blah blah” haven’t clued in yet that it’ll be just as long if the bill does pass, not to mention that the worst actors in this farce will be immeasurably stronger the next time we try to fix healthcare in the US.

    Really? I have grave doubts about this analysis.

    Starting from a higher plateau (so to speak) actually will shorten the cycle since the status quo has changed. And saying that “the worst actors in this farce will be immeasurably stronger” is not a particularly astute conclusion to make. That would happen either way. What would be different is that the best actors would be stronger if this bill passes.

  131. 131.

    BTD

    @Dr. Morpheus:

    Misinformation? Stupak says he has the votes to block passage unless he gets his way and Hoyer is reportedly offering a vote on the Stupak Amendment that would go to the Senate to be passed before the Stupak Bloc votes for the Senate bill.

    Now maybe Stupak is full of shit, but that is the state of play right now.

  132. 132.

    willf

    @thejoz:

    No one is saying “fire Woolsey”, no one wants her removed from Congress. Some people just want stronger advocates in the leadership spots at the CPC.

    That’s a long ways from wanting to primary her.

  134. 134.

    kansi

    If the bill is so terrible for Democrats, why are the Republicans still working overtime to defeat it? Why are they so “concerned” about the future for Democratic legislators who vote to PTDB? This is truly gut check time. The way I look at it, either you want the Presidency of Barack Obama to have a shot at three (or seven) more years to set the course for this country, or you want to hand the Republicans a wooden club they can use to beat him down every day for the next three years. Your choice.

  135. 135.

    Lev

    @willf: Yeah, I know that.

    I do understand the FDLers’ reasoning here, but I find it nearly as reprehensible as the Republicans’. Republicans oppose HCR out of ideology–they want the market to fix it or nothing. Firebaggers have the exact mirror stance–they want the market not to have any part in fixing the problem.

    If you really think private insurance can’t ever possibly work, fair enough, though many people in Europe would disagree with you. But if you believe this, then you lose the right to make any sort of moral argument about HCR ever again. We can start to fix this problem now, if we want to.

  137. 137.

    rootless-e

    @BTD: the bill that the “President produces” is what he/she can shove through congress. The limitations of the Senate bill are clearly not due to limits in what the President proposed or supported but in what can be done with a fractious, corrupt, and corporatist Senate Democratic caucus in the face of Republican intransigence. The fraud of the fake-progressive critique is this persistent fantasy that Obama could have produced a far more progressive bill by pushing some button that Rahm hid from him or that he decided not to push in order to piss off the wanker-issimos who call themselves the “base”.

  139. 139.

    les

    @willf: explains–well, asserts, condescendingly–

    Well, guess what? There’s no more “good” in the bill. Those wanting to kill it are actually making what was kind of “good” be the enemy of the horribly shitty.

    Douche. If you prefer actual thoughtful analysis, try Benen.

  140. 140.

    WereBear

    It’s like when you were a kid, and you had this fantasy about going to DisneyWhatever on vacation, and in your fantasy you stay at a hotel with a pool and beds to bounce on and there’s a party and a clown making balloon animals, every day.

    Then the amazing thing happens… you actually go!

    And it’s three days in the car smacking a sibling on the arm and eating the soggier and soggier sandwiches brought from home, and staying in the popup camper your Dad borrowed from a cousin.

    Maybe some people were the kind of kid who stomped their foot and said they wouldn’t go under those circumstances.

    And they didn’t.

  141. 141.

    mcc

    @fourlegsgood:

    Grow up – you aren’t going to get a pony this year. But help us buy the paddock and we’ll try again next year.

    Along those lines, something I don’t think is getting enough attention– if we wait until next year for the pony, we can get an even better pony.

    The public option as is– the version that was in the House bill, the only version that was ever considered by the Senate, and the version that one can only assume would be used in any attempt to pass the public option by “reconciliation” this year– was significantly watered down. The public option we almost got as part of this HCR bill was what was called a “negotiated rates” or “level playing field” public option, which meant that it set its prices to providers by direct negotiation, like a normal insurance company. The result of this, as the CBO found, was that the public option would cost more than a private insurance policy (because it would have no more ability to get cheap rates out of doctors than any other company would, but would not make effort to kick off unhealthy customers like a normal insurance company) and have no cost control effect on health insurance premiums.

    Now, if we’d somehow gotten this in the bill this year, or if we could somehow still get this passed via reconciliation? It would still be worth it for various reasons. But let’s say it’s not happening this year, and we have the forced luxury of another year to prepare and round up votes. If we don’t HAVE to be doing everything by the deadline of this huge HCR bill, we can push for the public option we really wanted to begin with, the “robust” or “medicare-linked” option, which used Medicare’s information about what providers can truly afford to pay in order to get care at a lower rate and significantly undercut the commercial insurance companies. Most of the magical properties ascribed to the public option depend on this linkage to medicare. People forget this, but when the progressive caucus originally swore to vote against a bill without a suitable public option, it was specifically the medicare-linked option they were demanding– they were pledging to vote against a watered down public option like the one that eventually passed the House.

    Now, maybe the pony next year isn’t going to happen, any more than the pony this year did. But if you burn down the stable now then something something metaphor analogy.

  142. 142.

    mr. whipple

    “I definitely want a PO or Medicare “Part E” or something. And I am not going to lie, I think there is zero reason for a vote on the Public Option to not come up as, say, an amendment to the Senate bill.”

    The reason why it won’t come to a vote is because Reid has been adament about protecting the jerks in the Senate who will vote against it and face the wrath of the base of the party. Plus, there are numerous Senators who said they were ‘for’ it, only because they knew there’d never be the votes for it. In other words, they were BS’ing, and are cowards.

  144. 144.

    Tonal Crow

    Oy vey, first dog vomit, then another Hamsher thread.

    If you really care about healthcare reform, forget Hamsher and call Congress — your reps first, then nationwide — asking them to PTDB.

    That is all.

  145. 145.

    DarrenG

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Ezra Klein has been making that exact point since the beginning of the process. Success breeds success; failure breeds failure, and a more right-leaning bill next time.

    The kill-the-billers are living in a fantasy world if they think they’ll get a *more* liberal bill in our lifetimes if this one fails.

    @BTD

    Everything I’m reading says there’s no way the Senate has the votes to pass Stupak, particularly as a stand-alone. If you’ve got different info, please post a pointer.

  146. 146.

    BTD

    @kansi:

    Republicans aren’t really working all that hard.

    There are no GOP votes for it so I’m not sure what the work is you are referring to.

    Are they trashing it? Sure. But that’s not work. That’s fun for them.

  148. 148.

    demo woman

    @BTD: I would rather run in November supporting the removal of anti=trust exemptions rather than blocking it. Locally that is not going to play well. It might not get coverage from Murdoch, but local folks want a level playing field. That is why only 6 repubs in the house voted against it. They have to have a separate bill in the Senate and they have to tout it though.

  149. 149.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    @willf:

    Forcing people to buy crappy overpriced health insurance from corporations that should rightfully be regulated like the old trusts.

    Ah yes – and just how is it that the “old trusts” were “regulated”?
    How did that happen? In detail. What were the legislative acts signed into law which did that?
    Hint: google the term “Elkins Act”. And then google the term “Hepburn Act”. One of them made it illegal to discriminate against customers thereby forcing the same deal to be offered across the board to everybody (while doing nothing to cut costs). The other one established a govt regulated cost structure. Which happened first? How long did it take to get from the first to the second? Which body of govt. was the key bottleneck in passage of these laws? How did the progressives of that era feel about the passage of the first of these two acts? What did they say about the President who signed (eventually) both of them?

  150. 150.

    BTD

    @DarrenG:

    Everything I’m reading says there’s no way the Senate has the votes to pass Stupak, particularly as a stand-alone. If you’ve got different info, please post a pointer

    Only info I have is Stupak says he can kill the bill if they do not pass his provision.

    Last time he said that, it was true and he got his provision.

    Either Stupak is wrong or he’s lying or he will get his way.

    I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

  151. 151.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @BTD: She was a month or so ago, though like you, I haven’t watched recently very much. But even if not currently, she has achieved prominent liberal pundit status in the msm, imo. And therefore has attained some power to give license for the msm to create dem infighting memes. Which is fine and dandy, but also gives license for us to criticize her. I think.

  152. 152.

    mr. whipple

    The folks saying “if HCR doesn’t pass, then it’ll be 20 years blah blah

    How long has it been since we tried last time?

  153. 153.

    BTD

    @demo woman:

    60 votes.

    You may not remember, but there was a vote on the anti-trust exemption repeal and it failed to get 60 votes in the Senate.

    At the time, there were 60 Dem caucusing Senators. And it wasn’t that close – 54 I think.

    But perhaps something is different now. You tell me.

  154. 154.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Ezra Klein has been making that exact point since the beginning of the process. Success breeds success; failure breeds failure, and a more right-leaning bill next time.

    Yup. Winners win, losers lose.

    Or, as Bill Clinton put it, strong and wrong will beat weak and right, especially among the blessed “independents”.

  155. 155.

    Martin

    @Corner Stone: Simply put, if your proposal doesn’t involve having to drag both Sanders and Nelson kicking and screaming into the vote, you’re in the impossible category.

  158. 158.

    Midnight Marauder

    @willf:

    We can retire “bailout for drug and insurance companies” as soon as the bill stops being exactly that.

    So should we put that on the calendar for “Right Now” or “Right Fucking Now”?

  159. 159.

    les

    @BillCinSD:

    I still don’t get how fighting to the end for what you think is right is a bad thing. But I guess since John has declared that this is the best possible bill we can get anybody wanting better is just a fool or a tool or something else that rhymes.

    It’s a bad thing when the fight for what you think is right, adopts the tactic that any other thing is unacceptable. So that millions of people get nothing instead of meaningful improvements in their lives, for the foreseeable future. The wit and wisdom of willf notwithstanding.

  160. 160.

    Tonal Crow

    @mr. whipple: Yeah, I’m afraid you’re correct. If HCR doesn’t pass, the GOP’ll have a resurgence, and it’ll be a long time before we’re in a position to try again.

  161. 161.

    willf

    @les:

    But you see, a lot of the things put forward in that analysis as “good” are easily contested.

    One example, pre-existing conditions:

    Over and over we hear how people with pre-existing conditions will finally be able to get insurance.

    But the same language that insurance corps. use now to deny someone a policy based on an PEC is in the Senate bill. They can still deny someone coverage if they feel that the person is fraudulently trying to get coverage for an existing condition- that same fraud exemption is in the Senate bill.

  162. 162.

    HeavyJ

    “..without a doubt, it would lift the system far above the status quo.”

    Which is why those millions of uninsured are so happily marching on Washington to advocate this thing, and sick people are dancing in the streets for all the “social justice” that is about to rain on them.

    Folks, the bill is a turd. It dumps the sick and poor into a dying program (Medicare), thus killing it even faster. Plus a new tax on working people to force more well people into a hopelessly broken for-profit insurance system.

    I suppose the “Left” can be blamed somehow, though. They clearly aren’t clapping loud enough.

  163. 163.

    GOVCHRIS1988

    It took us 16 years to get back here. If this bill dies, there will be no start over. Thats just the fact. If this bill dies, were dead politically. Thats all I can say.

  164. 164.

    rootless-e

    @BTD: – either you are too mentally limited to be able to understand things that are not black and white, or you don’t care about honest debate.

  165. 165.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @BTD: I think Stupak knows full well his language would never make it through the senate, and I don’t think that is his goal. His goal is to kill HCR for his own reasons. We would have to hear C Street pillow talk to know for sure what those reasons are. The other BD’s, if he has enough now to block the bill, won’t stand with him long, if many are actually doing it now, which I doubt.

    The senate language parrots the Hyde Amendment banning direct payment from tax money to pay for abortions. And everyone knows subsidy money has for years gone to insurance companies to indirectly pay for abortions, just like they would in an exchange, though some different mechanism.

  166. 166.

    mr. whipple

    @Tonal Crow:

    And further, there will be even less incentive to try. Pols will look at the ensuing massacre of failure and won’t want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Dem voters won’t buy their arguments to elect them so it can get done, they’ll just say, ‘hey, we gave you a huge majority in the house and senate, and you screwed up. Why will it be different next time?’

  167. 167.

    willf

    Again I ask, when did Chait become a progressive, even a self-styled one?

    All I remember is him punching hippies from way back.

  168. 168.

    DarrenG

    @HeavyJ

    What bill are you reading? It’s certainly not the one we’re discussing here, which doesn’t dump large numbers of new people into Medicare (Lieberman killed that months ago).

    If you really think the status quo is an acceptable alternative to the current bill, you either have no clue what’s in the bill or own a lot of insurance company stock.

  170. 170.

    gwangung

    But the same language that insurance corps. use now to deny someone a policy based on an PEC is in the Senate bill. They can still deny someone coverage if they feel that the person is fraudulently trying to get coverage for an existing condition- that same fraud exemption is in the Senate bill.

    Hm. My reading of the bill was that this was standard anti-fraud language. Can you draft language that bars outright fraud, and not allow abuse of it, given that other provisions of the bill now switches the burden of proof to the insurance companies?

  172. 172.

    Midnight Marauder

    @BTD:

    See, you think Hamsher is powerful.
    __
    I do not.

    Yet another shining example of BTD’s utter failure in reading comprehension.

    @rootless-e:

    I like BTD’s defense of Hamsher – basically she’s irrelevant, so don’t waste your time.
    __
    But I don’t think she’s irrelevant.

    Powerful is not the same as relevant.

  174. 174.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @General Egali Tarian Stuck:

    His goal is to kill HCR for his own reasons. We would have to hear C Street pillow talk to know for sure what those reasons are.

    I think you overestimate Stupak’s intellect. I suspect he’s a useful idiot for those who want HCR killed (and a close second is that he just likes being the big shot). I have a lot of single-issue abortion voters in my extended family. They vote against their own interests time and time again because they really believe all the gauzy bleating about ‘babies’.

  176. 176.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @BTD:

    You can all do what you want, but I call bullshit on pretending that the reason the health bills have not passed yet is because of Jane Hamsher.

    I have never said that. I oppose her actions as being generally puma and often unhinged with nary a centilla of progressivism and she is not the only one, as I often oppose your methods. Joe Lieberman killed the medicare buy in, and a PO was never going to fly by regular order. I do not think hamsher killed HCR, because for one thing, it isn’t dead. And will pass.

    We are at odds over tactics, not policy.

  177. 177.

    BTD

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Relevant to whether the health bills will pass or not?

    I say irrelevant. You intellectual giants say relevant.

    I find it hilarious because if the Stupak Problem were solved today, there would be a health bill voted out of the House.

    And Jane Hamsher would be irrelevant to that.

    But go on you Einsteins.

  180. 180.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @willf: I don’t know that he does style himself a progressive, and I gather he’s a neocon on foreign policy, or at the very least a fellow traveller wrt Iraq. But he supports HCR, and as a self-styled progressive, he’s travelling with me on that.

  182. 182.

    slag

    @BTD:

    pretending that the reason the health bills have not passed yet is because of Jane Hamsher.

    I don’t know who’s pretending this, but whoever it is should stop it.

    That said, it certainly doesn’t help us to have anyone out there not doing whatever they can to help get this legislation passed. If you’d like to argue that it does help, you’re free to do so.

  183. 183.

    Darkmoth

    @BTD:

    clearly he is not irrelevant. But there is a middle ground between impotence and omniscience.

    Carter: No HCR bill
    Reagan: No HCR bill
    Bush I: No HCR bill
    Clinton: No HCR bill
    Bush: No HCR bill
    Obama: Maybe HCR bill

    The fact that the bill lacks a PO isn’t proof of impotence, considering that we are unbelievably close to having a bill in the first place. There is obviously a limit to what a President can do, we are simply debating where that limit lies. “Impotence” isn’t anyone’s position.

  185. 185.

    Toast

    And the five of you who are going to write me emails telling me you are done reading Balloon Juice because I am too mean to “progressives”- save your time.

    Heh. I read Balloon Juice because you say things like this.

  187. 187.

    Makewi

    Had this bill a chance in hell of passing in the current political climate, I would find it more interesting that the uber progressive left is willing to hang itself on the corpses of the unborn it demands be allowed to pile higher. But since it doesn’t have a chance, I am going to classify this as part of the well known practice of finding someone to blame for the loss. On that, I heartily approve of your choice in Hamsher.

  188. 188.

    BTD

    @slag:

    Title of this post – “What Chait Said”

    What Chait Said – “Here it is, the most dramatic improvement in social justice in at least four decades fighting for its life in the home stretch, and the left can barely be roused to fight for it. [. . .] At the moment when every voice counts, when every ounce of pressure could prove decisive, here is FireDogLake”

    Emphasis mine.

  189. 189.

    rootless-e

    You know, I used to really dislike Rahm Emmanuel, but anyone who is hated by Jane, Grover, and Masa can’t be all bad.

  190. 190.

    Cat

    @kansi:

    If the bill is so terrible for Democrats, why are the Republicans still working overtime to defeat it? Why are they so “concerned” about the future for Democratic legislators who vote to PTDB?

    If your mortal enemy suddenly starts agreeing with your course of actions, its a good bet your course of action is playing right into their hands.

    In reality even if passing the bill would result in democrats being out of power for another generation the Republicans would still have to rail against the bill or they would be seen as agreeing with the bill by their constituents.

  191. 191.

    Ailuridae

    @willf:

    One example, pre-existing conditions:
    Over and over we hear how people with pre-existing conditions will finally be able to get insurance.
    But the same language that insurance corps. use now to deny someone a policy based on an PEC is in the Senate bill. They can still deny someone coverage if they feel that the person is fraudulently trying to get coverage for an existing condition- that same fraud exemption is in the Senate bill.

    The above is an outright lie. Please cite the language you refer to.

    Simply put there are only three things that can be used to price insurance in the Senate bill: age, family size and smoking ‘preference’. Otherwise there are no relevant pre-exisiting conditions.

    Given how loose you are with language I suspect you are actually talking about health insurance companies subjecting people to recission because of pre-existing conditions. This is, also, a wholly false claim and in a market where you cannot deny people insurance and that insurance is community rated is wholly irrelevant.

    It would be awesome if anyone who ever took up the firebagger side on these things weren’t a shameless liar.

  192. 192.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @BTD:

    You know what? That’s what they told me when the House was passing its bill. And somehow Stupak got his way.

    And what did the first House bill mean. Nothing. Pelosi let it pass because it meant nothing and would not return in a final bill. It was and is a legislative kabuki chess match, with mostly moves to cover pol asses in their districts. They let it pass the House first because BD’s didn’t want to be open for wingnut demagoguing and misinfo of letting tax dollars pay for abortions, and then have the overall bill die in the senate. Or, having stuck their necks out for nothing. Stupak’s language would over time gut Roe V Wade. Do you really believe the Senate, OR, the House will do that?

    Now it’s time to take the final vote, and without Stupak language, to have HCR become law, and be become sellable down in black and white, in even the reddest of BD districts. Or something to show for their risk.

  193. 193.

    Midnight Marauder

    @BTD:

    Relevant to whether the health bills will pass or not?
    __
    I say irrelevant. You intellectual giants say relevant.
    __
    I find it hilarious because if the Stupak Problem were solved today, there would be a health bill voted out of the House.
    __
    And Jane Hamsher would be irrelevant to that.
    __
    But go on you Einsteins.

    First of all, check your fucking “intellectual giants” and “Einsteins” insults at the door the next time you leave TalkLeft to come over here. Of ALL the people on the internet to even think they are in a position to flex their allegedly intellectual superiority, it certainly isn’t the guy who has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to grasp the BASIC FUCKING POINT of any thread or comment he responds to over here. A person who is so dense when it comes to basic reason and logic, that I question whether you are actually mentally deficient in your abilities to critically reason through an issue. So until you step your critical thinking game up, I would advise you to cool it with the “smarter-than-thou” sardonic bullshit.

    That being said, the point that Jane Hamsher is relevant to the emotional rollercoaster that is HCR is not to illustrate that she has some great and vast power or influence on proceedings. But it is to note that she does have a role with some substance on the Democratic side of things, and as such, can make things unnecessarily difficult for people supposedly on the same “team” as her.

  195. 195.

    Mark S.

    If Stupak really has the power to kill this, isn’t it dead? They have to pass the bill “as is” to avoid another round of Senate skullfuckery. And Stupak said he won’t vote for anything that doesn’t have his abortion language.

  196. 196.

    BTD

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Dude, you need to follow the conversation. I was told I am mentally challenged.

    Are you saying I should take it but I should not dish it out?

    Well, that seem not fair.

  197. 197.

    LindaH

    I may get hammered for this, but some of the tone of this article disturbs me. First, I do support passing the Senate bill and then crossing all my fingers and toes and praying very hard that we don’t get screwed in the Senate so that fixes are passed in a reconciliation bill. What bothers me is that this bill and especially not yet passed Stupak amendment ARE real threats to a woman’s right to choose and you are very blase’ about that. I resent the implication that I should just gut it up and make sure I keep a couple thousand dollars in savings because Representative Stupak wants to pass legislation that will not allow me to have abortion coverage on a policy that I am paying for. I am not happy that you seem to think my rights are disposable for the greater good.

    Now, as I said, I do support the bill and the hoped for reconciliation, but please try to acknowledge that some of the progressives have some legitimate concerns about what this bill will do to women’s rights. This is a bit of a break point for some of us.

  198. 198.

    Origuy

    @mcc:

    Along those lines, something I don’t think is getting enough attention—if we wait until next year for the pony, we can get an even better pony.

    Metaphor fail. Nobody dies if they don’t get a pony.

  199. 199.

    BTD

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Nice one from you here:

    A person who is so dense when it comes to basic reason and logic, that I question whether you are actually mentally deficient in your abilities to critically reason through an issue.

    I bow before your intellectual heft. What a hoot some of you are.

  201. 201.

    kay

    Congressional Democrats drafted it, the Democrats passed it in both Houses, and the Democrats own it.
    I think they know it, too. It took a little while for it to sink in, and they were really looking for an excuse to fail again, but I don’t see an out for them this time.
    It’s do or die. They can try to take Obama down with them, but if they fail, they’re toast.
    I think they’ll figure a way. get real creative :)

  202. 202.

    slag

    @BTD: And where does it say that “the reason the health bills have not passed yet is because of Jane Hamsher” exactly?

    If you disagree with the notion that now is “when every voice counts, when every ounce of pressure could prove decisive”, then you should just say so.

    I don’t see anyone blaming Hamsher for the bill not having passed. But I do see people saying she’s not helping. That seems like a pretty reasonable assertion to me since her stated intention is to not help.

  203. 203.

    Midnight Marauder

    @BTD:

    Dude, you need to follow the conversation. I was told I am mentally challenged.
    __
    Are you saying I should take it but I should not dish it out?

    Your mistake is limiting the context of my comment to just this thread.

  204. 204.

    sparky the self-puncher

    wading in–

    But also without a doubt, it would lift the system far above the status quo that is the only near-term alternative.

    sophistry. the last phrase may or may not be true, but the phrase that precedes it is, definitionally, a lie. a reinforcement of the status quo–which is, after all what is proposed here–cannot be above the status quo.

    Here it is, the most dramatic improvement in social justice in at least four decades fighting for its life in the home stretch, and the left can barely be roused to fight for it.

    when you end up with a sentence like this, perhaps it’s better to think for a minute about why that might be so. one might, were one inclined to think rather than shill, after a moment’s reflection, come to think that perhaps the premise of the sentence was a nullity. to claim that social justice comes about through for-profit insurers is the kind of hackery one would expect from the Heritage foundation.

    i am not going to debate any of this again, just reiterate that none of you people seem to offer up a single good reason for passing this bill other than some variant of “we have to!”

    as i have said before, i would love to be wrong about how this is going to turn out. perhaps i will be fortunate enough to be wrong, but at the moment i rather doubt it.

  205. 205.

    BTD

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Forgive me, I am a slow reader. This is priceless:

    “That being said, the point that Jane Hamsher is relevant to the emotional rollercoaster that is HCR is not to illustrate that she has some great and vast power or influence on proceedings. But it is to note that she does have a role with some substance on the Democratic side of things, and as such, can make things unnecessarily difficult for people supposedly on the same “team” as her.”

    Heh. Riiiight. It’s not just an exercise in handing out another beating of Jane Hamsher.

    It’s a respectful critique of the tactics employed by her at this critical stage of the . . . Bwaahahaahahaha!

    Pull my finger.

  206. 206.

    mr. whipple

    Chait may have only cited Hamsher, but it goes to a larger point. Namely, that the progressive blogosphere has by and large been negative about HCR. So much so, it will almost impossible to count this huge victory if it passes into a victory at all.

    Did Kos himself not say Kill the Bill? Numerous commenters at HuffPost? Didn’t Dean come awful close to that line? Aren’t there others that have labeled it as ‘a 8hit sandwich’ from the get go?

  207. 207.

    DarrenG

    @LindaH:

    I think you need to clarify which bill is “this bill.”

    The Senate bill does not contain the Stupak language, and that’s the bill currently under consideration. The original House bill, as passed, is dead.

    Some here seem to think Stupak is cutting some sort of deal to have his loathsome provision passed through both the House and Senate as a separate bill in exchange for his vote to pass the Senate HCR bill, but most serious Hill watchers seem to think either that’s a ridiculous Bogeyman, or that Stupak may just be dumb enough to vote for the Senate bill on the promise his separate bill will get a vote (and fail).

    How many Congresscritters *really* want to vote yea on a stand-alone Stupak anti-abortion bill in an election year?

  208. 208.

    BTD

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Yes, I note that you have insulted me in every thread I have ever commented in at Balloon Juice.

    That is the context of your latest string of insults.

    But have at it. Hold the moral high ground.

  210. 210.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @kay:

    It’s do or die. They can try to take Obama down with them, but if they fail, they’re toast.
    I think they’ll figure a way. get real creative :)

    And this, as they say, is the bottom line. Couldn’t a said it better myself:)

  212. 212.

    Cat

    @LindaH:

    progressives have some legitimate concerns about what this bill will do to women’s rights

    You will be told the fact this bill may bring more misery then it alleviates is letting the “perfect being the enemy of the good” which is code for we need a win to save face and boy are we glad we aren’t the ones who are going to have to suffer.

  213. 213.

    Mnemosyne

    @scarshapedstar:

    Can somebody please explain to me why the abortion ban is something that progressives just have to swallow?

    Because, unfortunately, we’ve had this stupid fucking law since the 1970s called the Hyde Amendment that left us open to these kinds of shenanigans by making it illegal for federal funds to go towards funding of abortions.

    If we can hold fast against the specific Stupak amendment and stick with the Senate version, we’ll be able to get by. The Senate version is still crap, but at least it’s slightly less stinky and odious crap and still allows women to buy coverage with their own money, unlike Stupak.

  215. 215.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @LindaH:

    Now, as I said, I do support the bill and the hoped for reconciliation, but please try to acknowledge that some of the progressives have some legitimate concerns about what this bill will do to women’s rights. This is a bit of a break point for some of us.

    I share those concerns, but most of the opposition from ‘the left’, at least the most vocal parts, has been about the lack of a public option, or the inclusion of mandates, or the lack of writing “Blue Cross Sucks My Ass” (and they do) on the dime. if a straight up vote on choice in a bill came up, I think things could get a lot dicier for Democrats and even some Republicans. I suspect Stupak, if it becomes law, may lead to some lawsuits down the road, and maybe that’s not a bad thing, if it bring the importance of choice and the judiciary to the for in the mid-terms.

  216. 216.

    BTD

    @slag:

    I find it ironic that someone thinks Hamsher’s voice is going to be that last drop we need to convince Bart Fucking Stupak and his group to vote for the bill.

    If nothing else convinces me of the sheer mindlessness of this post, it is that.

    This was straight up gratuitous Hamsher punching – simple as that.

    Let’s not try and give this thing any deep meaning.

    I mean it’s not like this is not the what, one thousandth time Cole has attacked Hamsher. I mean, what’s one more in the fucking scheme of things?

    Kid yourself if you want.

  217. 217.

    cleek

    Namely, that the progressive blogosphere has by and large been negative about HCR.

    not the progressive sites i read. they’ve ranged from “meh, i guess…” to “not great, but it’ll do!”

  218. 218.

    BTD

    @mr. whipple:

    Ah. But did you know Kos wrote for the Cato Institute?

    But I get it now – there is the Norquist Line. Did you know that a few other people crossed it?

    Now I never would and frankly, condemn any that have. But you would be surprised.

  219. 219.

    DarrenG

    @BTD:

    Really? Who were those? Names and cites, please.

    I don’t recall anyone saying Stupak’s amendment wouldn’t make it to the floor. Most (correctly) assumed the Senate wouldn’t pass similar language, though, and it’d have to be dealt with in conference.

    And holding your nose and voting for it as part of a huge package that contains many things you like is a very different proposition from a direct ‘yea’ vote on a stand-alone bill.

  220. 220.

    BTD

    @Mnemosyne:

    What if we can’t? What if Stupak exacts his price?

    Me, I would say I could accept the Dems swallowing it.

    But I’ll be damned if I accept people getting sanctimonious and huffy about people being pissed about that happening.

    Theda Skopcol comes to mind.

  221. 221.

    Midnight Marauder

    @BTD:

    Yes, I note that you have insulted me in every thread I have ever commented in at Balloon Juice.
    __
    That is the context of your latest string of insults.
    __
    But have at it. Hold the moral high ground.

    No. Just the ones where you act like a know-nothing ignoramus and clog up the thread with 20 posts that completely and utterly miss the point of the conversation. So yes, actually, that might very well be “every thread” you have ever commented on at Balloon Juice.

    And I find it absolutely hilarious that a thoughtful (if admittedly venomous and strongly-worded in nature) critique of your behavior when you visit this site gets branded as “insulting you.”

    Here’s a tip: Stop acting so slow-witted and obtuse every time you show up here, and I’ll stop talking about it.

  222. 222.

    kay

    And no one is going to listen when Congressional Democrats go back to their districts and start whining about how Obama didn’t pass their signature initiative.

    That only works on the internet.

    Try it. It’s ludicrous, out loud.

    “I failed on health care because President Obama didn’t pass the legislation I drafted”.

    So…. send me back! To FIGHT!

    That’s an internet-exclusive argument. It probably fails, real-world.

    Come on. That would provoke laughter in an actual gathering.

  223. 223.

    BTD

    @DarrenG:

    You must be joking. Seriously, you must be joking.

    Google is your friend.

    And no I won;t do the search for you. And yes, I know you think that will prove your point.

    But it won’t. If you are honest with yourself, use the google.

  224. 224.

    Monkeyfister

    John,

    You and Chait have the right of it.

    Get SOMETHING passed and on the books right now, and KEEP it there. It can be improved and perhaps expanded later. Right now, there is no more time for bullshitting around. A Bill MUST be passed. Even if it is a bit smelly, The immediate benefits are strong, and sound.

    Let the GOP run on an anti-HCR platform– If the American People are no longer facing remission, and ridiculous rate hikes, they will know who saved them.

    –mf

  227. 227.

    Mnemosyne

    @LindaH:

    The underlying problem is actually the Hyde Amendment, one of the most hideous pieces of legislation ever passed. The ACLU had a good explanation back in 2004 of what it does and how it distorts any attempt to improve healthcare for poor people.

    Unless Hyde gets repealed, Stupak and his gang of merry idiots are going to be able to keep pulling this shit. I honestly think we’re better off getting Hyde repealed than stopping the current healthcare legislation over the Senate’s abortion language because the next iteration of healthcare reform will have the exact same problem.

  228. 228.

    John Cole

    For christ sakes- the idea that I’m just ignoring the Stupak morons is ridiculous.

    I want the progressives to stop being silly. I want to shoot Stupak and his crew. I’m aware who the real problem is.

  229. 229.

    BTD

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Yes yes I know. It is my “denseness” in not fully understanding the righteous rightness of your position that proves my stupidity.

    Yes, I have heard your song before.

  232. 232.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Monkeyfister:

    Let the GOP run on an anti-HCR platform—If the American People are no longer facing remission, and ridiculous rate hikes, they will know who saved them.

    John Cornyn is already spinning in circles about whether the GOP will or won’t run on a repeal platform on this issue that they’re very sincerely warning Democrats to run away from.

  233. 233.

    BTD

    @John Cole:

    I want you to stop being silly.

    This post was completely ridiculous.

    But it serves your purpose – some fun Hamsher punching.

  235. 235.

    Mnemosyne

    @BTD:

    Please explain how we can have government-subsidized healthcare without running afoul of the Hyde Amendment.

  237. 237.

    mr. whipple

    @kay:

    “That’s an internet-exclusive argument. It probably fails, real-world.

    Come on. That would provoke laughter in an actual gathering.”

    They’d get laughed outta the room. How’d you like to be a DNC fundraiser? “Give us more money, and honest to Dog, we’ll get it done next time.”

    Nope, this is make or break.

  238. 238.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    Seeing as how these HCR threads always end up as centrists vs. hippies, could we at least have a cross-tribal romance, where say a hippie chick falls in love with a centrist thug, and then after many tragic struggles involving Cadillac plans, single payer financing, Medicare reimursement rates, and scheduled cross-border pharma regulations they eventually overcome the unrelenting hostility of their respective HCR factions, and then we can end the thread on a triumphant note with a big West Side Story dance number?

  240. 240.

    BTD

    @Mnemosyne:

    We can’t.

    I agree with your view.

    What I will not do is condemn those upset with a capitulation to Stupak.

    It’s bad enough that they have to swallow the damn thing, then people like Skopcol want them to cheeer the outcome and be happy about it.

    that is too fucking much imo.

    I say let them be upset.

  241. 241.

    dSquib

    Really don’t get much of the Hamsher hate on this, other than that her style is offputting. She doesn’t just think the bill is not whatever ideal conception of universal health care she has, she thinks the bill is a bad one, containing many bad elements, and that passing it under the banner of progressive health care reform and universal health care is an especially bad idea. I don’t think the bill is as bad as she does, but if I did I would not support it.

    In any case, the sort of “pragmatic” tactic Chait seems to advance is not some newfangled, untried idea. Democratic voters continually vote for candidates further to the right of them. The political culture we have we have as a consequence of that, amongst other things.

  243. 243.

    Midnight Marauder

    @BTD:

    Yes yes I know. It is my “denseness” in not fully understanding the righteous rightness of your position that proves my stupidity.
    __
    Yes, I have heard your song before.

    You don’t need to use the quotes. It’s a real thing.

  244. 244.

    DarrenG

    @BTD:

    Google is pretty much useless for this. I don’t have access to Lexis/Nexis, but I’m sure I could find plenty of analysis conceding early on that Stupak’s amendment was likely to not only get a vote, but pass the House.

    I specifically recall Ezra, Jon Cohn, and others making that very point, contra your assertion that nobody thought it would ever come to a vote.

    If your argument boils down to “Bart Stupak is an evil genius playing puppet-master with the entire Congress,” well, I don’t know what to say other than it’s time to adjust the dosage…

  245. 245.

    taylormattd

    @BTD: It’s not stupid Armando, and you know it. The left blogs have done more to damage the prospect of obtaining a health care bill than they have to push it.

    One of the most widely read, so-called progressive blogs is Firedoglake, and all it does is try and block health care, while simulataneously tarring and feathering people like Bernie Sanders and Lynn Woolsey. Daily Kos isn’t much better. I stopped reading you people around the time Jeralyn went nearly full-on PUMA and wrote a post casually asking if Obama supporters were cultists. Go troll somewhere else.

  246. 246.

    kay

    @General Egali Tarian Stuck:

    It might be good he forced the legislators to draft the bill. Had he taken over at the outset, and then the SCARY TEABAGGERS appeared, they’d be turning tail fleeing after one poor set of polling numbers.

    He’d be standing there alone, like Clinton was.

    This way, they own it :)

  247. 247.

    ruemara

    @BTD:

    Are you just here to troll or is your blog largely silent these days? Perhaps there’s a household chore you can do instead of venturing over here?

  249. 249.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    Insurance companies have for years received taxpayer subsidies that indirectly go to employer based policies. I think. If wrong, someone please correct me. The only difference is with an exchange, it will be centralized, and since being newly created by the fed government gives some silly notion that using subsidies now is any different that before, when there was no exchange.

  251. 251.

    Mnemosyne

    @BTD:

    What I will not do is condemn those upset with a capitulation to Stupak.

    If there’s a capitulation to Stupak, I will not be happy, because the Senate restrictions are enough to satisfy the requirements of the Hyde Amendment and still allow women to buy necessary coverage.

    You may note, however, that this is all in the realm of speculation and Kremlinology. Stupak is running around trying to get an amendment attached, but it hasn’t actually happened yet, much less been voted on.

    I understand trying to raise a fuss to prevent a deal from being struck with Stupak, but acting as though the deal has already been struck and there’s nothing more we can do about it is foolish in the extreme.

  252. 252.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Dan Maffei, Bill Owens and Mike Acuri, who voted yes on the House Bill, are now undecided on the Senate version.

    Dan Lipinski of Illinois, who IIRC had a close shave in a primary, says he will vote no without Stupak’s language.

    http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/

  253. 253.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @kay: The recent summit with dems and repubs was a thing of beauty to watch Obama deliver responsibility of the entire HCR outcome back onto the congress critters. They never knew what hit them.

  254. 254.

    Irony Abounds

    Christ, having a thread full of comments by Obama haters like BTD and willf isn’t a whole lot better than seeing one full of the right wing wackjobs. I know Grijalva, I live in Pima County. He was an incoherent idiot who was horrible as a Supervisor and is no less stupid as a representative. If you think he is the right man for any job, your views on almost any subject can be immediately dismissed.

    No one in their right mind can truly believe that you could suddenly transform the American health care system into the ideal progressive system overnight, not that there is any agreement as to what the ideal progressive system might be. It just amazes me how the public option is now the Holy Grail, which it never was in the past.

  256. 256.

    BTD

    @taylormattd:

    Wait, John should ignore me but not you?

    And of course it is stupid NOW when Hamsher has no relevance whatsoever.

    Now, I know that you are fond of attacking anyone who does not parrot the line you prefer (you learned that from me no doubt), but there was an argument I made that you chose not to address.

    As for my commenting, John can ban me as he sees fit.

  258. 258.

    mcc

    @Mnemosyne: Also if we don’t want capitulation to Stupak, it seems to me the most straightforward thing to do would be to pass the Senate bill, the one that lacks Stupak’s amendment.

  259. 259.

    John Cole

    Who wrote this:

    In terms of progressive activists, it is clear that they have been completely rolled in this process and were given absolutely nothing. The good parts of the bill (Medicaid expansion, theoretically, the better regulations, though I have no confidence in the enforcement mechanisms) were not controversial and should not be seen as concessions to progressives. Indeed, I expect they would be passed separately if the Senate bill fails. In short, progressives got nothing in the political bargaining.

    In my view, they should not lift a finger to get these bills passed. If progressives EVER want to wield even a smidgen of influence, they have to be prepared to sit on the sidelines if they do not get what they want. Let the winners in this bill do the work for getting it passed. It’s their bill after all. Not progressives.

    Because when I read that, I think it is exactly what Chait is talking about when he says “The somnolence is far from universal, but on the left there is at least as much passion against health care reform as for it. One of many considerations the vulnerable Democratic moderates who hold reform’s fate in their hands must balance is, in return for the limitless rage of the right, will they get any credit from the left for backing this reform?”

    Speaking for me only, of course.

  260. 260.

    Thoroughly Pizzled

    Just wondering, is this the real Big Tent Democrat?

    I know I’ve seen someone with the handle “Armando” posting here as well, so I’ve wondered whether or not the one from TalkLeft has been using two handles or if there is someone impersonating him.

  261. 261.

    mr. whipple

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    “Seeing as how these HCR threads always end up as centrists vs. hippies, ”

    I don’t see it that way, really. I see it in different ways, but not that way.

    – purists vs pragmaticists.
    – glass half full-ists, vs half empty-ists

    But in the LW blogosphere I see this mainly as a class thing. Over and over, we’ve seen the ‘progressives’ say that this is garbage. That this will demotivate ‘the base’, etc. In other words, they see themselves as ‘the base’.

    Which I don’t know is true at all. I don’t know how much of the Democratic ‘base’ consists as internet savy people that apparently can hang all day on LW blogs. I don’t know of any domestic workers, or people who stand at a machine, or work on an assembly line, or string cable, or do any sort of blue collar work that can afford to spend all day in front of a computer spewing about HCR. In other words, they are way too busy working, not an elite that can afford to wait for the perfect to come along.

  262. 262.

    DarrenG

    @Mnemosyne:

    You may note, however, that this is all in the realm of speculation and Kremlinology. Stupak is running around trying to get an amendment attached, but it hasn’t actually happened yet, much less been voted on.

    I think you misunderstand the process. As things stand, the House cannot amend the Senate bill. They must pass it as-is, otherwise they have to go back and get 60 votes in the Senate again.

    What they’re attempting to do is come up with one or more separate bills containing Obama’s patches to the Senate bill which would be passed through the House, and then passed through the Senate under reconciliation.

    Stupak can’t be passed through reconciliation, though, so it can’t be part of the “patch” bill in either house. It would have to pass both the House and Senate as a stand-alone provision, and would require 60 votes in the Senate, which is exactly why most sane people agree it won’t happen.

  263. 263.

    demo woman

    @BTD: I’m going to borrow the lines of that great blogger..
    You sir, are a pompous ASS…
    You certainly have the right to be against any bill that you desire but I have to say that Erick Erickson makes better arguments. Keep trying though, you might catch up.

  264. 264.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @John Cole:

    If progressives EVER want to wield even a smidgen of influence

    Well, it wasn’t Gandhi, I think he was libertarian.

    So, must be Jane, I’m reckoning. Nice to know “influence” is more important than covering 30 million people with insurance.

  267. 267.

    ruemara

    @BTD:

    Just trolling then. No wonder you’re over here defending Hamsher, you have the same egomania as she does.

    You know what, a woman’s right to choose has been under assault for years and in many states, is simply non-existent without money and transportation. I’d have a lot more respect for Hamsher or even you on this issue if you had some record of turning your ire against the Senators or State Assemblies with horrible women’s rights records. Instead here you are to defend those on the left who think the health care bill should be stopped.

  268. 268.

    Irony Abounds

    @John Cole:

    Don’t confuse BTD with facts John, it is a wasted effort. The fact is one reason HCR is on the ropes is because it polls so badly, or at least much worse than it should. All those “disapprove” votes are not conservatives, they include a significant number of Hamsheresque folks who oppose it. The conservatives use those poll numbers very effectively against fence-sitting Senators and Congressmen.

  269. 269.

    taylormattd

    @John Cole: Wow, lol. Armando explicitly advocates for killing the bill, and then bitches and moans about the unfairness of your post.

    More than a little pathetic.

  270. 270.

    Mnemosyne

    @BTD:

    Pass the Senate bill through the House and let Stupak try to get his amendment through separately, which is the only option anyway. As several others have pointed out, Stupak can’t amend a bill that hasn’t passed, and if he succeeds in attaching his amendment to the Senate bill before the House votes, it will have to go back to the Senate for another round of Republican filibusters because it will no longer be the same bill and defeat the whole purpose.

  271. 271.

    Adam Collyer

    @cat48:

    I know I’m late to the party, but I really want to comment on this.

    People should NEVER ask for donations back from their representatives in Congress. EVER. There’s a reason why they are “donations.” If they were intended to be a quid pro quo, we have another word for that – it’s called bribery.

    Your money is theoretically (both morally and legally) used to show support for candidates who support your causes. You are not buying votes. If a politician you supported monetarily votes in a way that you find abhorrent, you have several options, not the least of which is to withhold your vote from him the next time around.

  272. 272.

    Mnemosyne

    @DarrenG:

    I think you misunderstand the process.

    No, I get the process. I was just dumbing it down for BTD’s benefit since he seemed very confused about what exactly was going on and actually thought that Stupak could amend the Senate bill without sending the whole damn process back to square one. Dumbed down a little too far, I guess. :-)

  273. 273.

    rootless-e

    What’s the political purpose of the liberal blogs? The Hamsher/BTD/etc wing thinks that the purpose is to provide instructions to the Obama administration on legislative tactics and “framing”.

  275. 275.

    TR

    @ruemara:

    Just trolling then. No wonder you’re over here defending Hamsher, you have the same egomania as she does.

    Yep. That would explain the hundred or so posts telling us how little he cares about this post.

    So sad.

  276. 276.

    FlipYrWhig

    This is to say

    Armando, can you

    Please stop writing

    So many short-lined posts

    Some of which consist of

    Nothing but thumbs-up or thumbs down

    On previous posts.

    Thank you.

    (with apologies to William Carlos Williams)

  278. 278.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @taylormattd: Teehee, I failed to read down to the Speaking for Me part. WoW. indeedy, a Perry Mason moment. Well done senor Cole.

  279. 279.

    rootless-e

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ: Although I like your west side story idea, it’s not really centrists versus hippies. I’m certain that my political views are far to the left of BTD and Jeralyn and Hamsher and Duncan. It’s really an argument between rank-and-file and would-be-leadership. I want something done. They want to be influential.

  280. 280.

    cat48

    @BTD:

    Actually, yes, with a negative msg like hers, she is on too much. I work at home & have news on all day. I noticed the WashPost & NYT are now quoting her too which is a horrible trend. Then they can write, even the prez’s supporters don’t support whatever the subject is……

  281. 281.

    gbear

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    Seeing as how these HCR threads always end up as centrists vs. hippies, could we at least have a cross-tribal romance, where say a hippie chick falls in love with a centrist thug, and then after many tragic struggles involving Cadillac plans, single payer financing, Medicare reimursement rates, and scheduled cross-border pharma regulations they eventually overcome the unrelenting hostility of their respective HCR factions, and then we can end the thread on a triumphant note with a big West Side Story dance number?

    Ummm, you do remember how West Side Story ends, don’t you? We’d be better off with a Sound Of Music ending (where we all escape across the border to a neutral country).

  282. 282.

    Adam Collyer

    @gwangung:

    We can retire “perfect is enemy of the good” when we also retire “bailout for drug and insurance companies.”

    Dammit, I hate being so late to threads that we’re almost 300 comments deep. But I’ll do one anyway…

    Can we also retire “shit sandwich”, as well? In fact, I think there are a billion political phrases that we should retire after this debate is over. I’d suggest that John set up a thread to make a list.

  283. 283.

    kay

    @mr. whipple:

    Try it. Clear you throat and tell them you failed again, and then blame Obama. Then promise to FIGHT for them! At some undetermined time, for some undetermined “cause”.
    Then stand there as derisive laughter fills the room.
    I don’t know, mr. whipple. I’m not standing up there and saying that, because I’ll be busting out laughing too.

    I think they better get busy.

  285. 285.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    @mr. whipple:
    @rootless-e:

    Agreed and understood.

    On the other hand, it’s been awhile since I last heard tell of a joke that was improved in the telling by adding footnotes, you know just to make sure we have all the political factions sorted out correctly. Maybe back in Barcelona in ’37…

    ETA:

    Ummm, you do remember how West Side Story ends, don’t you?

    Thank god. I was starting to worry that I’d managed to sneak that one right past everyone without anybody noticing.

  286. 286.

    dSquib

    If progressives EVER want to wield even a smidgen of influence, they have to be prepared to sit on the sidelines if they do not get what they want.

    Sounds like a novel strategy. I’m just amazed anyone can write this with a straight face. Seems almost like concern trolling. He just described the exact thing progressives are already doing, have done for the past quarter century, the exact era where are our elected officials in both parties have continued to drift toward the right.

  287. 287.

    FlipYrWhig

    @rootless-e: I largely agree with your distinction, but I’d add to it. There’s also a divergence on the value of standing firm and fighting hard _and losing_.

    I think that fighting hard and losing gets chalked up as a loss, which breeds further losses. So, for instance, if there aren’t the votes for single-payer or the public option, you have to trim your sails and get what you can, because standing firm on those (smart, good) liberal priorities isn’t going to accomplish anything. Votes are key: you have to show you can get things done. You get maybe two-thirds of what you wanted, and people on your left side grumble.

    On the other hand, people like Jane Hamsher and Duncan Black and others seem to think that fighting hard and losing does no damage and may even breed further _wins_ by galvanizing “the base.” So if there aren’t the votes for single-payer or the public option, you dig in and proclaim their superiority, expose your enemies. Votes be damned: you showed you couldn’t be pushed around. You get nothing that you wanted, but people on your left side cheer.

  288. 288.

    Mnemosyne

    @dSquib:

    Oh, come on, just because that strategy has continuously failed since 1968 doesn’t mean that this time it won’t work. We just need to all stay home one last time and the Democrats will totally come crawling back to us. You’ll see.

  289. 289.

    BTD

    @John Cole:

    I did Cole.

    What does that have to do with this silly post?

    Here’s a hint for you – neither you nor I qualify as “progressive activists.”

    Sitting out the fight does not mean “kill the bill.”

    It means sit it out.

    Now, I know that the intellectual level at this blog is well above mine, but the point I make is different than yours.

    Yours is that UNLESS Jane Hamsher helps you pass the bill, it won’t be passed.

    I guess you really believe that.

    My point is progressive activists should not fight for this bill, as they got nothing for it.

    Now I guess it would be too damn honest for you to actually quote the beginning of the post – where I say I would rather see the bill passed.

    Nope. This is the intellectual superiority that I come to expect at Balloon Juice. I learn from the masters.

  290. 290.

    BTD

    @dSquib:

    Actually, it is not a novel strategy. The Reagan Conservatives used it to sweep to power.

    But I have so much to learn from this blog.

  291. 291.

    mcc

    @Origuy:

    Metaphor fail. Nobody dies if they don’t get a pony.

    I agree the metaphor is pretty silly; I’d prefer to just drop it. The point of my post was that if instead of trying to force through the public option as part of the main HCR bill, we pass the HCR bill now and try again with the public option another year, we have a chance to improve the public option significantly from where it would be if it passed now.

    To be clear– you are saying the reason this is a bad idea is because people will be dying without a public option?

    I don’t think that’s an argument that really helps you in this context. Again, let’s go back to the CBO. The CBO projected (see pages 6 and 16) that the House plan, the one with a public option, after ten years would bring insurance to 36 million people (the Senate plan would insure only 31 million additional people) and wind up with 6 million people in the public plan. The House plan had improvements in other coverage mechanisms besides the public option, but let’s be generous and assume for now that all 5 million additional people the CBO projects to be insured under the House plan are due to the existence of the public option.

    If the concern is people dying from lack of insurance, then the public option simply is not the most important thing. The public option would surely be significant as a mechanism for increasing insurance coverage, but it is dwarfed by the other reforms present in the bill. If the goal is to prevent people from dying for lack of insurance, then it doesn’t make sense to focus on the 5 million people that would be covered by this one provision rather than the 31 million that would be covered by the HCR bill as a whole. If what we care about is people dying, then our first priority needs to be to pass the bill even if it lacks a public option.

    Now, of course 36 million is better than 31 million, so we’d like to get there if we could? So like I said before, if we can pass a House-Bill-style public option this year via reconciliation, let’s go ahead and do that. But that’s a hypothetical, something I see no immediate reason to believe we can pull off. If it’s okay to talk about hypotheticals, then I like my hypothetical better, the one where we treat deferring the public option as an opportunity to round up extra votes during the fall elections and demand the public option be robust this time. If we pulled that off one expects we could get something even better than 36 million even, because then the public option would be able to go toe to toe with the private insurance companies rather than being an expensive insurer of last resort. And I would question in this scenario whether there’s any downside to passing the public option reconciliation bill in 2011 rather than 2010– because the public option takes a few years to get started up in any scenario, and if I’m not mistaken most of that startup time has to do with the subsidy system.

    Basically, as I see things, not only is public option brinksmanship not the best thing for the bill– I don’t think it’s even necessarily the best thing for the public option.

  293. 293.

    IanY77

    John, I come here (and the other blogs I visit) because you’re not “doctrinaire” anything.

    Those 5 e-mailers can, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, suck it.

    Love the blog. Period.

  294. 294.

    Mnemosyne

    @BTD:

    The Reagan Conservatives used it to sweep to power.

    Really? The Reagan Conservatives swept to power by telling their voters to stay on the sidelines and not vote because that would totally show the Republican establishment that they meant business?

    I think it’s time to put down the bong, hon.

  295. 295.

    BTD

    @slag:

    I wonder at your comment. For some reason, recognizing the utter irrelevance of Jane Hamsher (who, if you’ll notice, has a different view of this than I do, she actively opposes the bills) has to do with my argument that passage of the bill should be dependent on those who got what they wanted.

    The BJ crowd is pleased with the bill. Fight for it.

    It seems absurd to ask say, NOW to fight for the bill.

    It is more absurd to ask it of Hamsher.

  296. 296.

    Mnemosyne

    @BTD:

    It has succeeded since 1964 to 1980 for those willing to use it.

    You really need to read Nixonland because you obviously haven’t got the first clue what the Republicans did in order to gain power between 1964 and 1980. Hint: it wasn’t telling their voters to stay home and sulk.

  297. 297.

    themann1086

    @BTD: The right wing didn’t take power by sitting out elections, they took power by taking over local party positions and springboarded from there. In other words, the exact opposite of what you’re proposing.

    Why don’t you run for precinct captain Armando, and actually try to influence the party for reals.

  298. 298.

    BTD

    @Mnemosyne:

    Voters? Or activists?

    I see now what the problem is.

    You folks equate fighting for a piece of legislation with sitting out an election.

    Apparently, you folks missed Reagan conservatives rebelling against Rockefeller Conservatives.

    I wonder that the phrase “not your father’s GOP” means anything to you folks.

  299. 299.

    BTD

    @themann1086:

    Indeed. And when I say for anyone to sit out an election, then you will have a point.

    Of course I said sit out the health bill fight. Not the elections.

  300. 300.

    BTD

    @Mnemosyne:

    @Mnemosyne:

    No. You dumbed it down for some reason you will have to explain.

    My comment in this thread make clear that I understood the Hoyer proposal to be a 3rd bill for the Stupak Amendment that will require 60 votes in the Senate.

    That may be his price.

    All I know is one person has lived up to his word so far in this saga, Bart Stupak.

  301. 301.

    slag

    @BTD: You know. I’ve been sympathetic to your arguments many times. But this isn’t one of them. Your duplicitous sanctimony isn’t buying you squat this time. Your self-imposed idiocy in this situation is only matched by your intense self-regard. It’s really cute to claim that you’d rather see the bill pass and then actively argue against us working for it.

    Or maybe it’s not cute…what’s the word I’m looking for?…Silly! Yeah, that’s it. It’s “silly” to claim you want something to happen and then argue that you shouldn’t work to make it happen. And beyond being silly, it makes you a lying @sshole.

  302. 302.

    BTD

    @taylormattd:

    That of course is a lie.

    I advocate for progressive activists sitting it out.

    Killing the bill would mean fighting against it.

    I suggest the opposite.

    Honesty would of course destroy your baseless statement.

    If only Cole would link to the post.

  303. 303.

    Mnemosyne

    @BTD:

    You folks equate fighting for a piece of legislation with sitting out an election.

    I now officially have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. What piece of legislation did conservative Republicans refuse to support that eventually got them into power? If you’re thinking of civil rights, then I would have to agree with you — the people trying to block healthcare reform are very similar to the people who tried to block civil rights, even if they claim to be doing it from the left.

  304. 304.

    BTD

    @slag:

    Us? Who’s us? I do not think of Balloon Juice as people by progressive activists.

    I think Balloon Juice has been quite clear that it has been for passage of the Senate bill for months now.

    That is a legitimate position to hold, but you are hardly aggrieved parties in this process.

    You are PLEASED with the bill.

    You should be fighting your asses off for it.

  305. 305.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    @BTD:

    It has succeeded since 1964 to 1980 for those willing to use it.

    Let me get this straight. Are you seriously suggesting that the political evolution of the US from 1964 to 1980 was driven to a significant degree by the willingness of the Goldwaterite and later Reaganite right wing of the GOP to sit on the sidelines and pout during that period, because Nixon and Ford weren’t good enough for them? And that what the Dems need is more of what the GOP got in 1964 and 1976?

    My memory must be faulty, because I recollect that the shift of the country to the right during that period had a whole lot more to do with: ( a ) the Southern Strategy, ( b ) the Vietnam War and subsequent dolchstosslegende, and ( c ) nasty infighting in the Democratic party and the inability of the Carter admin and congressional Dems to get along with each other.

  306. 306.

    Midnight Marauder

    @BTD:

    Sitting out the fight does not mean “kill the bill.”
    __
    It means sit it out.

    What on Earth…?! Are you honestly trying to claim that Democrats in Congress who choose to “sit it out” do not have an impact on the overall chances of said bill to pass? Because it definitely sounds like that’s what you’re trying to say here, and that line of thinking is utterly divorced from reality.

    When people like Dennis Kucinich say “Single Payer or Bust” and decided to remove themselves from the HCR push to Pass The Damn Bill, then yes, that does end up equaling to “Kill The Bill”.

    My point is progressive activists should not fight for this bill, as they got nothing for it.
    __
    Now I guess it would be too damn honest for you to actually quote the beginning of the post – where I say I would rather see the bill passed.

    So you want the bill to pass, while simultaneously advocating for a large block of Democrats to impede it’s passage. Do you know what progressive activists are getting from this bill, BTD?

    HEALTH CARE REFORM.

    You know, that thing they’ve been supposedly fighting to accomplish for almost 100 years now?

    The fact that you would try to claim both positions on this issue just shows how disingenuous and intellectually unserious you are.

  307. 307.

    BTD

    @Mnemosyne:

    It seemed clear to me that you did not know what I was talking about.

    Perhaps if you take a moment you’ll understand.

    Activism for passing a piece of legislation is different than activism in an election.

    I advocate for not engaging in activism FOR the health bill if you got nothing out of it. In my view, progressive activists got nothing out of the process. But I do not recommend fighting AGAINST it. I say sit it out. the health bill activism.

    On the other hand, elections require activism for candidates who support your views. I strongly encourage electoral activism.

    I hope that explains it for you.

  309. 309.

    BTD

    @Midnight Marauder:

    I’m curious how sitting it out constitutes “impede it’s passage.”

    In fact, you folks should be urging Hamsher to sit it out as she is for fighting to kill the bill. you would rather have her on the sidelines.

    You ask “Do you know what progressive activists are getting from this bill, BTD?”

    Precious little imo. I had a running argument with Chris Bowers on the subject the past few days.

  310. 310.

    mcc

    I advocate for progressive activists sitting it out.

    So taking a moment to do some informal calculations, I find that over the course of this thread you have made an average of just over one post on the subject every two and a half minutes. Is this what you call “sitting it out”?

  311. 311.

    Mnemosyne

    @BTD:

    My comment in this thread make clear that I understood the Hoyer proposal to be a 3rd bill for the Stupak Amendment that will require 60 votes in the Senate.

    Since your claim was — and I’ll quote you here:

    Stupak says he has the votes to block passage unless he gets his way and Hoyer is reportedly offering a vote on the Stupak Amendment that would go to the Senate to be passed before the Stupak Bloc votes for the Senate bill.

    There would be no reason for Hoyer to make that offer because until the Senate bill is passed by both houses of Congress, it cannot be amended. Any amendments at this point would mean we would be back at square one because the Senate would have to re-vote on the bill and then send that bill back to the House to be re-voted on.

    What you’re claiming is procedurally impossible if the plan is for the House to pass the Senate bill as-is.

  313. 313.

    Mnemosyne

    @BTD:

    I advocate for not engaging in activism FOR the health bill if you got nothing out of it. In my view, progressive activists got nothing out of the process. But I do not recommend fighting AGAINST it. I say sit it out. the health bill activism.

    You still haven’t explained how the Reaganites used your strategy as outlined above from 1964 to 1980 to gain power. Please enlighten us, because right now you’re making absolutely no sense whatsoever.

  314. 314.

    BTD

    @Mnemosyne:

    That is simply not correct.

    No bill becomes law until the President signs it.

    Furthermore, Stupak could insist on Senate passage of his bill and then passage by the House of the Senate health bill and his bill.

    You simply are wrong on the procedure.

  315. 315.

    Tom Hilton

    @Dollared:

    Let’s recognize right here and now that if Obama had really threatened the world with giving Jane her way, we’d have a lot better bill. And it would be signed. And we’d be on to financial reform.

    Well, of course–if you subscribe to the kind of magical thinking Jane Hamsher employs.

    In the real world, of course, had the President offered a bill as ideologically pure as Hamsher wants, that would have been pretty much the end of the process. A bill like that wouldn’t have a prayer of passing in either house. Pushing it wouldn’t have softened resistance from the conserva-dems; they just would have walked away altogether. End of healthcare reform.

  316. 316.

    BTD

    @Mnemosyne:

    By fighting for legislation they believed in and not for legislation resulting from assuaging other interests, even when urged by their Party leaders.

    They became the dominant force in the GOP and took it over for good in 1980. Bob Michel was retired and the rest is history.

    Honestly, this is basic stuff.

  317. 317.

    John Cole

    So you want the bill to pass, while simultaneously advocating for a large block of Democrats to impede it’s passage. Do you know what progressive activists are getting from this bill, BTD?

    It’s transparent nonsense.

  318. 318.

    BTD

    @mcc:

    First, I am not a progressive activist.

    Second, sitting out the health bill fight has nothing to do with wanking in a silly thread.

    I mean honestly, do you think commenting in this thread is engaging in the fight for the health bills?

  319. 319.

    slag

    @BTD:

    That is a legitimate position to hold, but you are hardly aggrieved parties in this process.
    __
    You are PLEASED with the bill.
    __
    You should be fighting your asses off for it.

    Give me a freakin break. We’re no more PLEASED with the bill than any other liberals out there. You claim to be in favor of the bill’s passage and then actively argue against working for its passage. You’re a fraud. A phony. And I’m not going to deign to defend my more-liberal-than-thou credentials from the likes of you.

  321. 321.

    chopper

    @willf:

    which is exactly why we lost social security and medioh, wait.

    turns out the most beloved parts of our social safety net all started out small. hm, that’s interesting.

    thank god the KTB crowd didn’t hold sway back in the 30’s and the 60’s.

  322. 322.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @BTD:

    I feel pretty much vindicated.

    That’s what comes from hedging your bets. You never win, but also never lose. Seems a tad empty to go through life that way. But to each his own.

  323. 323.

    gwangung

    By fighting for legislation they believed in and not for legislation resulting from assuaging other interests, even when urged by their Party leaders.

    I think Mnemosyne is pointing out that you’re glossing over the basic nuts and bolts of gaining and exercising political power in the US. FIghting for legislation is insufficient without becoming part of the party machinery (precinct officers, etc.) which, honestly, you’ve apparently been a bit light on.

  324. 324.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    I mean honestly, do you think commenting in this thread is engaging in the fight for the health bills?

    Yes, they do. Balloon-Juice is in a death struggle with FireDogLake for legislative supremacy. Haha.

  325. 325.

    themann1086

    @BTD: Hang on a sec.

    BTD: “If progressives EVER want to wield even a smidgen of influence, they have to be prepared to sit on the sidelines if they do not get what they want.”

    DSquib: “Sounds like a novel strategy. I’m just amazed anyone can write this with a straight face. Seems almost like concern trolling. He just described the exact thing progressives are already doing, have done for the past quarter century, the exact era where are our elected officials in both parties have continued to drift toward the right.”

    BTD: “Actually, it is not a novel strategy. The Reagan Conservatives used it to sweep to power.”

    Me: No actually they used a very different strategy of taking over the party apparatus from the ground up.

    BTD: I never said to sit out elections!

    And I never said that you said that. You really are a disingenuous, condescending prick.

  326. 326.

    Midnight Marauder

    @BTD:

    I’m curious how sitting it out constitutes “impede it’s passage.”

    Well, considering that the people who are supposedly “sitting it out” are often times talking about how worthless this bill is, how there is “precious little” in the bill that would actually make a difference, and a whole host of other GOP approved talking points, the sum of those parts is the kind of toxic, ass-backwards political climate we have facing us today.

    The one where people are grossly misinformed about the actual details of the bill, and just generally angry about things that are flat out inaccurate. And the people who should be clearing the air of all that misinformation are too busy dumping more and more bullshit into the environment and poisoning the well of HCR’s chances to succeed.

    In fact, you folks should be urging Hamsher to sit it out as she is for fighting to kill the bill. you would rather have her on the sidelines.

    We would, you’re right. However, again, I’m not sure you fully understand the opinions being articulated here.

    You ask “Do you know what progressive activists are getting from this bill, BTD?”
    __
    Precious little imo. I had a running argument with Chris Bowers on the subject the past few days.

    As we’ve seen in this thread, your opinion is amazing uninformed and generally confused on details, logic, and reason. Again, what progressive activist, what citizens in this country in general, are getting from this bill, BTD, is HEALTH CARE REFORM.

    Also, I am very much so looking forward to your revisionist history explanation of how the Regan Revolution was born out of the Republicans refusing to participate in the political process.

  327. 327.

    Mnemosyne

    @BTD:

    No bill becomes law until the President signs it.

    Sigh. Let’s start from the beginning:

    Both the Senate and the House passed bills that needed to be reconciled with one another before the combined bill could be sent to the president to sign. The process in the Senate was very difficult because they had to have 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

    After Scott Brown’s election, Democrats realized that they would not be able to get the necessary 60 votes to pass the combined bill so it could be sent to the president.

    Therefore, a plan was hatched to have the House pass the Senate bill exactly as written, which would avoid the necessity of reconciling two separate bills before the president could sign it into law.

    If Stupak attaches an amendment to the Senate bill before it passes the House, it will not have passed exactly as written and will have to go back to the Senate for another vote before it can be sent to the president, which is, you know, exactly what having the House pass the Senate bill exactly as written was meant to avoid.

    You are now claiming that Stupak can attach an amendment to the House version of the bill that is not in the Senate version of the bill and the bill can still go directly to the president for his signature. That is patently not true.

    I can’t figure out if you’re lying or if you genuinely didn’t know any of the above and really think that Stupak can attach an amendment to the Senate bill before it passes the House and not have it get bounced back to the Senate. I’m also not sure if you genuinely don’t know that you can’t amend a law before the law is actually passed, which is what you seem to be claiming when you say that Stupak wants his bill passed first. His bill amending the Senate bill can’t be passed first, because there is nothing for it to amend.

    You are claiming that Stupak is going to insist on a procedure that won’t work. You may be right, but at least Stupak realizes the reason he’s demanding it is that it won’t work and it will cause the bill to fail, not because he’s trying to change the Senate bill.

  328. 328.

    slag

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Yes, they do. Balloon-Juice is in a death struggle with FireDogLake for legislative supremacy. Haha.

    And while I’m at it…You’re just a wanker. This blog has actively encouraged people to contact their representatives. This blog raised over $10,000 for Martha Coakley’s campaign. Not to mention all the donations to animal-related causes. What the hell have you done lately? What’s your contribution been?

    I swear. Half the time I agree with you two @ssholes. But you sure as hell don’t make it easy.

  329. 329.

    FlipYrWhig

    @willf:

    But the same language that insurance corps. use now to deny someone a policy based on an PEC is in the Senate bill. They can still deny someone coverage if they feel that the person is fraudulently trying to get coverage for an existing condition- that same fraud exemption is in the Senate bill.

    Um, yes, insurance companies deny people for making fraudulent representations. The Senate bill doesn’t specifically prohibit insurance companies from defending themselves against fraud. Eliminating such protections means… authorizing fraud. This has always been a very strange limb of a very strange tree. My understanding is that the provisions protecting people with preexisting conditions work _alongside_ these anti-fraud provisions; yes, insurance companies do _now_ use the existence of undeclared preexisting conditions to justify denials and rescissions, but they’ll be banned from doing that going forward. (My memory is getting fuzzy but I remember some kind of phase-in.) You have to distinguish between preexisting conditions and fraud, and you can’t create a law that allows fraud.

  330. 330.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @Mnemosyne: It is procedurally impossible, as an amendment to the current HCR bill. The only other way it could become law, is a separate stand along bill, or attached to some other type legislation. It is absurd to think that Hoyer would agree to a vote with a condition it must be included in a final bill before Stupak would drop his objection and vote for it. With any intention or belief it would become law, because there is no way around a filibuster by liberal dems in any form it is presented, especially female dems in the senate, and the three on the goopers side. And not to mention the House liberals letting this odious language become law. The only thing that makes sense is giving Stupak et al a butt covering separate bill and let it pass, which it likely would, though close. Then send it to the senate to die an undignified death.

  332. 332.

    Mnemosyne

    @BTD:

    By fighting for legislation they believed in and not for legislation resulting from assuaging other interests, even when urged by their Party leaders.

    I find it fascinating that you claim that “this is basic stuff” and yet can’t come up with a single example supporting your claim.

    Which means, of course, that you pulled it out of your ass and are now trying to pretend that “this is basic stuff” so therefore you can’t be bothered to actually provide facts. How about a couple of names of these brave legislators, or the specifics of the legislation that they stood against?

  333. 333.

    Mnemosyne

    @BTD:

    Not an amendment. A standalone bill.

    Please explain how the standalone bill can pass before the legislation that it’s meant to apply to passes.

  334. 334.

    BTD

    @Mnemosyne:

    Oh, you want examples? From1964 to 1080, you can’t think of any?

    Have it your way. There was no Conservative takeover of the GOP from 1964 to 1980. there was no fight between the tradition GOP and the Movement Conservatives on issues.

    I dreamt it all.

  336. 336.

    Elise

    @BTD:

    You can all do what you want, but I call bullshit on pretending that the reason the health bills have not passed yet is because of Jane Hamsher.

    Where did anyone say this was the reason for the HCR vote being delayed?

    I don’t think I’ve read that anywhere.

    The point is that Jane is an stupid hypocrite. She claims that HCR is so important, but actively works against it. She claimed that any Democrat who went on FOX News was a traitor and a sellout, but then went on FOX News. She claimed that she was raising money for primaries against those who voted against HCR and then collected the money and paid herself thousands per month instead – having spent $0 on any candidate in any primary.

    The point is – while Democrats should be standing together saying, “PASS THE DAMN BILL” – Jane is shrieking like a moron about how Woolsey didn’t jump at the exact second Jane told her to, so she should resign and hang her head in shame while Jane elevates the status of the moron who DID jump when she told him to.

    So, while the rest of us are talking about the best way to push for HCR passage…Jane is ignoring all of those people she was supposedly fighting for. Those other cancer patients don’t matter – because Jane’s got hers. Fuck them.

    Jane isn’t a Democrat. She’s not progressive. She’s a stupid bitch. It’s just that simple.

  337. 337.

    Mithras

    @FlipYrWhig:
    The Senate bill, H.R. 3590, limits rescission to intentional misstatements of material fact. Currently, insurance companies use negligent or even unknowing misstatements about trivial things to rescind policies.

  338. 338.

    BTD

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Just the end. I do not believe this bill delivers health care reform.

    Most progressive activists also think it fails as reform.

    I am for the bill passing because it provides Medicaid expansion.

    The rest of the bill is meaningless imo as it does not provide a path to real reform and does not enact enforceable regulations.

    I have no objection to the rest of the bill. I just have no enthusiasm for it either.

  339. 339.

    FlipYrWhig

    As for BTD’s “sitting on the sidelines” theory, I think I’ve heard something about the emergent Christian right either threatening to sit out or actually sitting out one of those elections before Reagan. 1976 presidential? 1978 Congressional? Or maybe it was 1992 presidential, spurred by dissatisfaction with GHWB? I’m blanking. Anyway, I think BTD’s model isn’t “Republicans” disengaging, but their hardliners, and longing for the leftiest of Democrats to do the same thing. Personally I think any Republican power will be used to do such immense harm that the disengagement strategy is never a good idea for lefties.

  340. 340.

    Mnemosyne

    @BTD:

    Oh, you want examples? From1964 to 1080, you can’t think of any?

    Hey, it wasn’t my example. It was yours. You’re the one making a ridiculous claim and then refusing to back it up. Trying to turn it back on me and insist that I am supposed to go out and find evidence to prove that your ridiculous claim is true is quite Jonah-esque of you.

    Have it your way. There was no Conservative takeover of the GOP from 1964 to 1980. there was no fight between the tradition GOP and the Movement Conservatives on issues.

    Clearly so, since you can’t actually provide a single example to back up your claim that the way the movement conservatives won was by opposing legislation generated by their own party.

    By passing it in the Congress.

    So now Congress can pass laws amending laws that don’t actually exist? Or are you arguing that Stupak will further insist that both bills be signed at the same time (assuming they both pass) so his bill actually has something to amend?

  341. 341.

    NR

    This effort to blame progressives for the (possible) failure of HCR would be hilarious if it wasn’t so dangerous. We progressives fought tooth and nail for popular provisions that would have made the bill easier to pass, like the public option and the tax on millionaires. It was the “centrists” who fucked up the bill by keeping the popular things that we wanted out of it and adding incredibly unpopular things like the excise tax.

    No, don’t blame Obama for wasting months and months last year trying to get the votes of Republicans when it was obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that they were never going to support the bill no matter what was in it. Don’t blame Max Baucus for bottling the bill up in the Senate Finance Committee for months at the behest of his insurance industry masters. Don’t blame the “centrists” for making the bill so awful that the public hates it now.

    No, if this corporatist abomination that now carries the name of HCR fails, it will all be the progressives’ fault. And this is despite the fact that every so-called progressive in the Senate voted for it, and the vast majority of progressives in the House are going to do so as well. Because gosh darn it, the problem is that they just didn’t fight for it hard enough.

  342. 342.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @BTD: What mnemosyne is pointing out is that adding any new language to the senate bill after it is passed by the house, would require the senate also to vote again by regular order because it wouldn’t be eligible for recon.. IOw’s it can’t be done without being subjected to a senate vote and filibuster. un possible.

  343. 343.

    BTD

    @Elise:

    What Chait Said is the name of this post Elise.

    Frankly, I think the best thing Hamsher could do for passage of this bill is to sit out the rest of the debate.

    Thanks for being civil in your response.

    I honestly believe you and people who agree with you want the best for progressivism, Democrats and the country.

    I think we disagree on the best way to attain this.

    It’s an honest disagreement.

    to be clear, I have serious problems with the way Hamsher behaves. I just think it is silly and counterproductive to put so much focus on her.

  344. 344.

    DarrenG

    @Mnemosyne:

    Now you’re getting too hung up on process.

    I think BTD is just pulling stuff out of his ass about Stupak’s mastery of the legislative process (just like he is about the Reagan Revolution being triggered by people bravely sitting on their asses), but even assuming he’s right, you still have to assume there are 216 House members and 60 Senators who’ll vote for the Stupak restrictions in an election year before this bogeyman becomes real.

  347. 347.

    Elise

    @NR:

    We progressives fought tooth and nail for popular provisions that would have made the bill easier to pass, like the public option and the tax on millionaires.

    Yeah, and you still can’t name 51 votes for either of those things in the Senate – in other words, this part: “that would have made the bill easier to pass” isn’t remotely true.

  348. 348.

    Keith G

    If *BTD* = Big Tent Dem, I am confused.

    I thought a “big tent” implied coalition building, and coalition building implied (at times) deferred gratification.

    Simply, at times we fight for the goals of other members of the coalition (big tent) even though it is not directly what we want. Still we know that the success of the coalition (big tent) will eventually strengthen the fight for all of our goals, both shared and not.

    Sitting out is not fighting. Not fighting is unhelpful to others in the big tent.

    Maybe you should be renamed Pup Tent Democrat.

  349. 349.

    Mnemosyne

    @FlipYrWhig:

    But he keeps insisting that he’s not talking about having voters stay home, so those can’t be the examples he’s refusing to provide.

    You’d almost think he can’t actually come up with an example of movement conservatives opposing their own party on legislation between 1964 and 1980.

    I can think of one that movement conservatives fought tooth and nail — civil rights — but I don’t think that’s an example that will make his “principled” leftists look very good for opposing healthcare reform, which is probably why he won’t actually say it.

  350. 350.

    BTD

    @DarrenG:

    Look, you read The Hill right? If you have, then you know I am not pulling it out of my ass.

    It reported this “3rd bill” scenario, quoting Hoyer on the record.

  351. 351.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    @slag: You sanctimonious little prick, I ain’t here to swap cum with you or the other members Obamacans brigade. As far as I’m concerned, you douchebags have turned a great snark site into a tedious morass of constant left bashing, emotional angst and peculiar animal fixation.

    I won’t ever operate inside of your paradigm so you may as well fucking pie me.

  352. 352.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @BTD:

    The rest of the bill is meaningless imo as it does not provide a path to real reform and does not enact enforceable regulations.

    The senate bill clearly lays out new law on several regulatory fronts.. What do you base your claim of unenforceable on? Of, course, creating and publishing regulations in the Federal Register is an important exercise, but it will be done under a dem administration. If new regulations are unenforceable, then there is no point in trying to regulate the insurance industry in the first place. There will be problems, there always are in enforcing new law, but a flat saying it’s not worth it does not make any sense to me.

  353. 353.

    The Sheriff's A Ni-

    @Keith G:

    Maybe you should be renamed Pup Tent Democrat.

    I’ve been referring to him as such since last spring.

  355. 355.

    Mnemosyne

    @DarrenG:

    I know. I guess I still couldn’t believe that BTD would be this disingenuous about something as important as healthcare reform, so I keep giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he’s confused and not that he’s deliberately lying and obfuscating about what Stupak is trying to do and what the procedure would be in order to mislead people.

    Live and learn, I guess.

  357. 357.

    NR

    @Elise: Well since we never got a vote on those things in the Senate, we’ll never know, will we?

    I bet you couldn’t have named 419 votes in the House for the repeal of the anti-trust exemption before it came to the floor and got that many.

    When popular legislation comes to the floor, you’d be surprised at what’s possible.

  358. 358.

    DarrenG

    @BTD:

    Yes, Hoyer made a couple vague comments about a possible unspecified third bill to pacify the fetus fetish crowd last Thursday.

    That’s a far, far cry from saying such a bill would contain exactly the same sort of ridiculous restrictions that the original Stupak amendment did, or that this putative bill has the necessary votes to pass either house or get signed by the President.

    You’re jumping at monsters under the bed.

  359. 359.

    Midnight Marauder

    @BTD:

    Just the end. I do not believe this bill delivers health care reform.

    I am for the bill passing because it provides Medicaid expansion.

    The rest of the bill is meaningless imo as it does not provide a path to real reform and does not enact enforceable regulations.

    So…you are in favor of passing the bill, even though it contains absolutely no value to anyone in this country whatsoever and will fail to provide a legitimate path to continuing the efforts to overhaul the health care system in this country?

    I just want to make sure I have your insane logic documented correctly.

  361. 361.

    Elise

    @BTD: I think Jane puts the target on herself by being such a hypocrite.

    We’re going to get HCR. I’ve said the from the very beginning. I think we’ll get the votes we need for the Senate bill to pass the House and I think we’ll get the fixes through reconciliation. You can already see that Dem poll numbers are going upward – and if you take out Rasmussen (because it’s clear that they’re trying to drive a media narrative and their polls are full of shit) then those poll numbers are even better.

    Jane demanded the spotlight – she got it. It highlighted just how horrible a person she is. Now she wants to cry about it. That’s not really my problem. She can either get the fuck out of the way, or she can join us and work towards passing HCR.

  362. 362.

    DarrenG

    @NR:

    And why, exactly, do you think a bill with a public option was never brought up for a vote in the Senate, if it had enough votes to pass?

  363. 363.

    BTD

    @Elise:

    I do not disagree with your take on Jane.

    Frankly, I have taken the get out of the way approach and advocate it for others who agree with me on the slim merits of this package.

    the rising popularity of the Dems well, we’ll wait and see how that plays out in November.

  364. 364.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @BTD: It’s an idiom that has nothing to do with money. I didn’t say it was a bad thing, just seemingly empty when it comes to doing politics and not choosing sides and fighting for your choice in spite of imperfection in that choice. It wasn’t an insult, just an observation.

  366. 366.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @BTD: I think there will be a federal oversight agency to first grant state primacy for states enforcing said regs, and after to monitor their actions. This is a standard template for new regulation from the federal government of US law. States won’t be able to do just what they want, because codified federal law will be behind it, and how the taxpayer subsidies are used.

  367. 367.

    Origuy

    @mcc: I think you and I agree; the public option is desirable but the important thing is to get something passed that will get more people coverage and prevent rescission.

  368. 368.

    DarrenG

    @NR:

    There were 60 votes for a public option, including every single member of leadership, but leadership killed something they themselves would have voted for?

    That logic is so tortured it would physically arouse Marc Thiessen and John Yoo…

    And obviously the best way to fix this state of affairs is to give the GOP everything on their Christmas list. And a pony.

  370. 370.

    Mnemosyne

    Chris Bowers at OpenLeft demolishes the notion that progressives get nothing in the bill.

    Are the provisions in it purely — or even mostly — things that were on the progressive wish list? No. But claims that the bill doesn’t make any changes to the status quo or is worse than the status quo are pretty definitely proven false.

  371. 371.

    Glen Tomkins

    Not What Chait Says

    We’re not going to have to wait for 2045, or larger Dem majorities, to get our next shot at HCR.

    If the health insurance industry doesn’t get it’s bailout, in the form of the individual mandate, it will collapse. No, the alternative to passing the president’s plan is not the status quo, because the status quo is unstable, the industry’s entire business model is collapsing around us. The young, healthy people it relies on to offset the claims of the sick, have largely deserted the individual market, and businesses are eager to spread the same behavior to the group market. This is happening because our healh insurance industry is a standout on price, charging 2-5 times what medical care costs anywhere else in an industrialized world that has the same, if not higher, standard of care as ours. Throwing money at them, bailing them out by chaining the working poor to the oars of their sinking ship with the indvidual mandate, will only make them less efficient.

    We’re not doing HCR this year because suddenly the spirit of do-gooding has won out, and the problem of the uninsured, which has been with us as long as we have had health insurance, is suddenly salient because the national heart has suddenly grown two sizes. We’re doing HCR this year because the industry needs a bailout or it’s toast. The only part of this package that will ever be implemented is the individual mandate, because that’s the part the industry needs. Our govt, as presently constituted, is simply not going to force the industry do any of the do-gooder things that are also part of this package, because these other things would cost the industry money. They would force the industry to raise premiums on the working poor that this package would chain to the oars. None of these things, not the prohibition on rescission, nor denial of isnurance to people with pre-existing, nor the limits on the MLR — are ever going to be enforced.

    If your judgment of the political reality is that the Dems were too timid to just do Single Payer — fine, we don’t do Single Payer this year. We do nothing and wait until next year, when premiums are double what they are today. If there still isn’t the will to just do what needs to be done, and who cares if the opposition calls us Socialists — because they will, and have, anyway — we do nothign next year, and by the end of that time, no one will still be insured, and we will have a chance to design a system from scratch, because the existing system will have finished self-destructing.

    But, oh, the horror of so many more tens of millions going without insurance for two years! Oh, please. The current package doesn’t even kick in for 2-3 years, such is the sense of urgency of its architects. We could wait a whole year of complete inaction, and then, once we’ve actually decided to do something other than a bailout that won’t work anyway, once we’ve decided to do what obviously needs to be done to replace an industry that has failed, we could pass Medicare for All and start collections and claims payouts the same day the bill is signed, because Medicare is already functioning. We’ld still be insuring the uninsured a year or two ahead of this package.

  373. 373.

    Robert Waldmann

    Dear John

    You and Jon are much much too kind to Jane. The insane part of the post was not quoted by Chait.

    “I wrote “If Lynn Woolsey’s got 60 votes, I’ve got leprechauns in my laundry room” and demanded that she name names.

    [skip]

    60 members finally signed their names to the famous July 31 letter to Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman saying they would vote against any bill that didn’t have a public option – tied to Medicare reimbursement rates.”

    Hamsher does not seem to notice that she just claimed that Woolsey lied when she said she had the support of 60 representatives and considers the proof that Hamsher is wrong to be further proof that Woolsey should step down. This is *not* a case of Hamsher saying something then refusing to retract it when it is proven wrong. This is a case of Hamsher saying something long after it was proven false, then presenting the proof that it is false and *not noticing.*

    The leprechauns in her laundry room must be distracting her.

  374. 374.

    chopper

    @Keith G:

    BTD follows congress’s model of naming things after the exact opposite of what they actually intend to do.

  375. 375.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @Glen Tomkins: You don’t understand the cold processing of federal law, once it’s on the books. It is like a monster that never quits and you can never escape it in the long run.. The Bureaucracy never forgets and keeps churning to catch up to you, even if temporarily you escape. Insurance companies know this full well, they will search for loopholes, and find some and will exploit them whenever they can. But they will by and large accept the new rules, and follow them. And more congressional actions will need to be taken to plug those loopholes. It is what happens to all regulatory efforts on any industry. But claiming “nothing” will be done is wrong. I have experience with this as a former federal regulator.

    And with health care, people care when they get screwed, and now will have a legal course to take, or a political one with their reps. Your observations, while having some merit, do not necessarily apply as much with the topic of health care.

  376. 376.

    Toni

    @Glen Tomkins: What is the makeup of that congress that will pass medicare for all? If you compare what Nixon wanted to do for healthcare vs. Clinton vs. Obama, the movement has been more conservative even as the situation has gotten progressively worse.

  377. 377.

    DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)

    @rootless-e: “I like BTD’s defense of Hamsher – basically she’s irrelevant, so don’t waste your time.”

    I’m willing to give BTD credit as the voice of experience when to comes to being irrelevant but I would have to disagree with him on this. Nothing unusual there though. :)

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Awww c’mon JSF, you’re just phoning it in lately. It’s as if there’s no Fuckhead left in you. Dig deep, reach for the bottom of the Fuckhead barrel, scrape up some of that ‘good’ stuff and come back for another try.

    BTD: “Which puts him perfectly in tune with Balloon Juice, don’t you think?”

    You’re commenting here, right? Please define “perfectly in tune with Balloon Juice” for me, will ya? I sure see lots of differing opinions here, some are informed, some are not, but they are all freely posting here and yet you imply that the people here are all singing one tune. Why? Because you like to remain oblivious to the obvious, no matter how many times it’s pointed out to you.

    Like I have said many times in the past, you are a Bloviating Tiresome Dipshit. It’s just who you are.

    @Midnight Marauder: “Yet another shining example of BTD’s utter failure in reading comprehension.

    Exactly. Oblivious to the obvious to the bitter end.

    BTD: “I say irrelevant. You intellectual giants say relevant.”

    I love how you build us up before knocking us down…lol! I guess we fall further when you put us up on a pedestal before knocking us down. It’s like a child stacking up building blocks and then knocking them over with glee. On the “irrelevant” part, while I may agree you are an expert on being irrelevant I have to disagree with you (yet again).

  378. 378.

    NR

    @DarrenG: Read what I wrote again. Comprehension is required.

    My whole point was that we don’t know how many votes there were for a public option, and thanks to the Democratic leadership, we will never find out.

  379. 379.

    FlipYrWhig

    @NR: There weren’t enough votes for the public option. End of motherfucking story.

    Look, you can argue that the people who did support it should have fought harder for it in order to scrape together the last few votes. Note that scraping together the last few votes for what _did_ exist involved kissing the hairy butts of Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, and Ben Nelson. So what you’re really saying is that there’s some obvious thing that Obama _could have done_ to get the public option in there, past those four who never liked it and pretty much wanted the whole thing to go away. (Not to mention all the other squishes, like Bayh and Webb and Carper and Pryor and Warner and Baucus and whichever one of the North Dakotans kept bringing up the co-ops.) But he didn’t. Just to spite you and the other backseat purists. It doesn’t make sense.

    The public option _is_ an excellent idea. It doesn’t have 60 votes. It doesn’t have 50 votes. Thus it’s not in the bill. Really not difficult to figure out.

  380. 380.

    NR

    @FlipYrWhig:

    There weren’t enough votes for the public option. End of motherfucking story.

    Bullshit. You don’t know that. Nobody knows that, because we never took the damn vote.

    Nobody thought that there would be 419 votes in the House for repeal of the anti-trust exemption until that vote was taken. They were wrong. They could just as easily be wrong about the public option, too.

  381. 381.

    FlipYrWhig

    Fine, make it a separate bill and we’ll see what happens. I think it’s a wonderful idea that ran up against a brick wall of center-right Democrats in the Senate who like to flaunt their credentials as resisters of Big Government. It seems completely logical that they would decide to draw a line to say that the government shouldn’t be setting up an insurance company. I disagree with their logic because I’m not a center-right corporate dillweed. But center-right corporate dillweed Democrats have a lot of say over our politics, especially when they come from red states that would gladly elect enormously worse Republicans.

  382. 382.

    Gwangung

    Nobody thought that there would be 419 votes in the House for repeal of the anti-trust exemption until that vote was taken. They were wrong. They could just as easily be wrong about the public option, too.

    This seems a bit like whistling in the dark, coming a bit more out of desperation than knowledge. Quixotic, even. I would think you’d want something a bit more solid to launch an effort from.

  383. 383.

    mclaren

    The sociopaths are out in force tonight. One particularly demented shriek stands out:

    If you can explain how getting none of what you want could possibly be preferable to getting some of what you want, then sure. Otherwise, you’re retarded.

    I’m retarded, then.

    Because this health care bill will make everything worse. For everyone.

    Let’s run through the list of things that will happen when this health care bill passes:

    [1] If you have health insurance now, you’re going to lose it — because premiums will zoom upward at such a rate that your current employer won’t be able to afford to pay them in a few years. There is NO cost control in this HCR bill. NONE. Zero. Zip. Diddly. Nada. Dick. Bupkiss. This is, incidentally, the entire intention of this bill with its “Cadillac tax” — the entire point of that excise tax is to force employers to give their employees less insurance, in order to save money, but that’s not cost control…it’s just dumping people off the insurance rolls. At the rate premiums have been increasing, “less” insurance means “no insurance” when you project out a few years.

    [2] If you make less than $75,000, you’re going to see a whopping hit to your budget from that excise tax within 5 years. Yes, while premiums zoom upward, you’ll have less money to pay ’em. Good deal, huh?

    [3] The working poor will take a mammoth hit to their income but still won’t be able to afford insurance. Welcome to the worst of all possible worlds — no health care, but a confiscatory tax for the crime of being poor. If you work at Wal*Mart, prepare to live on a steam great, because the excise tax will take away your rent money.

    [4] That medicaid expansion? Pure bullshit. Smoke and mirrors. States are in such dire fiscal emergency that they’re slashing medicaid rolls right and left. The federal government will of course mandate that the additional funds get spent for medicaid, which means nothing…when a state is so broke its only choice is to either shut down all its state offices and pay new medicaid recipients, or dump the medicaid funds from the feds into the general fund and keep the lights on in its state offices and slash the medicaid rolls, out here in the real world the states will slash medicaid rolls. So this health care bills means many fewer people on medicaid. Lawsuits will fly, of course, but when a state like California is so dead broke it’s sending IOUs to its contractors instead of checks, no amount of federal lawsuits in the world can conjure up money out of nothing.

    [5] Prohibitions on recission? More lies. The current health care bill permits recission under another name — if you have a disease but didn’t tell your insurance company, it’s fraud. Presto! Change-o! The insurance companies merely say to everyone diagnosed with a diseas, “Oh, gosh, we’re sorry, you didn’t tell us you had that disease, so you committed fraud and therefore we’re dropping you from the insurance rolls.” And when you beg and plead, screaming, “But I didn’t *know* I had the disease!” the insurance company will smirk and giggle all the way to the bank, laughing as you suffer and scream and die with no insurance.

    [6] The current health care bill permits insurance companies to jack up premiums for pre-existing conditions. Way up. Welcome to the nightmare, as Alice Cooper sang, if you’re over 45, because your premiums are about to triple. Yes, this HCR bill permits insurance companies to charge old people more…much more. Eat it, serf. Your masters have spoken.

    [7] The current health care bill does nothing, absolutely nothing, to break up the monopoly cartels and corrupt doctors and crooked hospitals charging $3232 for a CAT scan that in France or Germany costs $40. When this health care passes, every doctor in America will break out the Dom Perignon and high-five each other, shouting “Bugatti Veyron, baby! Phillipe Patek watches for everyone! Month-long vacations in Maui!” Because MDs in America make a median income of $200,000, which is 2 to 5 times what doctors make in the rest of the developed world, and with this new supply of captive victims to bleed for their obscenely overpriced tests and scans and surgeries, doctors’ salaries will zoom upward into the stratosphere. No cost containment, no reduction in the rate of increase of prices, no breakup of the corrupt insurance monopolies, nothing. Just more victims forced by the federal government to buy insurance they won’t be able to afford, and then fined for the crime of not making $250,000 or more a year.

    This health care bill is a nightmare from hell that’s going to insure one thing: if you have insurance now, you’ll lose it because the price will skyrocket out of reach, and if you can’t afford insurance now, your income will take a whopping hit when the government fines you the crime of being poor.

    After this health care bill passes, many fewer people will be on the medicaid rolls, the states will go broke faster as the pitifully small exchanges swell with chronically ill people dumped in ’em by the greedy corrupt insurance cartels — and when the states can’t pay for the medical care for all those millions of new people in the exchanges, the states will one by one default and shut down. Meanwhile, hospitals will close across the country as insurance cartels price premiums so far out of reach that no one can afford ’em.

    Welcome to self-destruction. Suicide in fast forward. You’re going to lose your insurance, the insurance cartels will go broke as they enter massive death spirals where the shed so many people that the premiums must skyrocket for those who remain which in turns requires that they dump more people in the exchange, and so on… And in the states, the budgets already bleeding red will drown in a tsunami of red ink from all those new chronically ill people the states can’t afford to treat.

    Within 10 years after the passage of this health care bill most of the insurance cartels in America will be broke and out of business. Doctors will get dragged out of their rolls royces and lynched. Hospitals will burn. 70% or more of the American public will no longer have insurance because they can’t afford it, and cops will be beating and tasing and shooting sick people in wheelchairs who are holed in their homes with guns because they’re dying and they refuse to pay the excise tax for being poor.

    You wanted it, you got it. This is a nightmare from hell. The insurance companies wrote this legislation and the government will enforce it, and when sick people get fined and refuse to pay because they’re broke and the SWAT teams break down their doors to charge their houses, don’t be surprised when the entire SWAT team along with the dying cancer patient goes up in a high explosive blast. I predict dying people whose insurance got yanked (and who got dumped into worthless state exchanges that provide no medical care because the states are broke) will start suicide-bombing hospitals and ERs and insurance company headquarters.

    That’s what your “reform” will bring. You wanted it, you’re going to get it. I hope you choke on it.

  384. 384.

    FlipYrWhig

    I mean, I live in Virginia now. We had the choice of a dull and unpolished Democrat who was squishy on environmental issues and didn’t like the health care bill — or the blow-dried, glad-handing Bible thumper we got stuck with. That’s what happens when Democrats lose here: Republicans who are monstrous take their places. Jim Webb and Mark Warner are not good liberals. But if they lose you get George Allens and Bob McDonnells and Ken Cuccinellis all the way down. So you’ve got no leverage over the Democrats who come out of a climate like this, because the alternative sucks. That’s why center-right Democrats can flex their muscles and kill good things like the public option.

  385. 385.

    FlipYrWhig

    I stopped reading mclaren after the first outright falsehood. So I didn’t get very far.

  386. 386.

    FlipYrWhig

    Dude, mclaren, I saw the end of your screed, and that’s some Turner Diaries shit. Seek help.

  387. 387.

    Corner Stone

    @NR:

    Nobody thought that there would be 419 votes in the House for repeal of the anti-trust exemption until that vote was taken. They were wrong. They could just as easily be wrong about the public option, too.

    But, but, but…the art of the possible ? Political realities?
    Etc, ergo, ad hom, as such, so forth and so on.

  388. 388.

    mclaren

    @FLipYrWhig:

    I stopped reading mclaren after the first outright falsehood.

    So you read all of it, eh? Glad to hear it.

  389. 389.

    Batocchio

    I agree that the FDL crowd (actually only part of the FDL crowd) are being idiots, but there are plenty of progressives who are in the Pass the Damn Bill crowd, both here on BJ and elsewhere. Let’s punch the idiots but not all the hippies, please (since that’s some awfully weary and destructive bullshit).

  390. 390.

    DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)

    Welcome to self-destruction. Suicide in fast forward. You’re going to lose your insurance, the insurance cartels will go broke as they enter massive death spirals where the shed so many people that the premiums must skyrocket for those who remain which in turns requires that they dump more people in the exchange, and so on… And in the states, the budgets already bleeding red will drown in a tsunami of red ink from all those new chronically ill people the states can’t afford to treat.
     
    Within 10 years after the passage of this health care bill most of the insurance cartels in America will be broke and out of business. Doctors will get dragged out of their rolls royces and lynched. Hospitals will burn. 70% or more of the American public will not long have insurance because they can’t afford it, and cops will be beating and tasing and shooting sick people in wheelchairs who are holed in their homes with guns because they’re dying and they refuse to pay the excise tax for being poor.

    Vivid man, absolutely vivid. I take it that you are an optimist?

  391. 391.

    mclaren

    @FLipYrWhig:

    Dude, mclaren, I saw the end of your screed, and that’s some Turner Diaries shit. Seek help.

    So you stopped reading my post and you didn’t get very far, but you read all the way to the end.

    Which is it?

    Were you lying then, when you claimed you didn’t get very far? Or are you lying now, when you claim you read to the end?

    You need to keep your lies straight. When you try to Swift-Boat someone, it’s crucial to remember which lies you told. You’re not doing it right. Take a look at tapes of some of those old Swift Boat ads from the 2004 election — that’ll show you how to do it.

  392. 392.

    Mnemosyne

    @FlipYrWhig:

    In a country with decent healthcare, mclaren would be optimally medicated with Thorazine and useful to society. Instead, this is what we get.

    Best healthcare in the world, baby.

  393. 393.

    CalD

    @NR: There are 37 in the Senate right now, at last count. I won’t post a link b/c the source was one of the groups that were running attack ads on Blue Dogs over this earlier on. 37 is not 51 and BTW, one of the 37 is Harry Reid.

    About third of that list is likely just willfully pandering. It impresses the rubes and since this won’t come to a vote anyway, it doesn’t cost them anything to pick up a few brownie points among well-meaning naifs.

  394. 394.

    mclaren

    Incidentally, you fantasy-world-dwellers seem to be assuming that when the house passes the senate bill in reconciliation, the senate will make fixes that the house wants.

    WRONG.

    Here’s what will actually happen: the senate will make fixes, but they’re going to make the bill much worse. I don’t know how much worse, but I do know it will shock even the most jaded cynics. Whether the senate will triple the excise tax, or mandate prison time for anyone who can’t pay for health insurance, or whether the senate will pass a law requiring insurance companies to set aside not 30 cents out of every dollar for 20 million dollar a year CEO salaries but 50 cents out of every premium dollar… I can’t tell. But the senate will change the bill for the worse, and everyone will be stuck with it.

    The health care cartels haven’t donated 60 million in campaign contributions to their pets in congress for nothing, kiddies. You’re gong to witness a horror beyond belief when this flipper-footed thalidomide monster of a bill finally crawls out of the senate.

  395. 395.

    CalD

    @mclaren:

    Here’s what will actually happen: the senate will make fixes, but they’re make the bill much worse. I don’t know how much worse, but I do know it will shock even the most jaded cynics. Whether the senate will triple the excise tax, or mandate prison time for anyone who can’t pay for health insurance, or whether the senate will pass a law requiring insurance companies to set aside not 30 cents out of every dollar for 20 million dollar a year CEO salaries but 50 cents out of every premium dollar… I can’t tell. But the senate will change the bill for the worse, and everyone will be stuck with it.

    Lemme guess: The voices told you.

    I think I’ve got a roll of Reynolds Wrap somewhere. We could probably fix that for you.

  396. 396.

    mclaren

    You people are truly pathetic. You’re advocating the underpants gnome plan for health care reform.

    Remember the underpants gnomes?

    Step 1: collect underpants

    Step 2: ????

    Step 3: Profit!

    The balloon-juice underpants gnome theory of health care reform is:

    Step 1: Pass corporate-written cartel-sponsored monopolistic laws that add no cost controls to the world’s most expensive (yet worst) health care delivery system and force people to buy crappy overpriced insurance that increasingly doesn’t actually insure anything;

    Step 2: ????

    Step 3: Health care reform!

    Pathetic.

  397. 397.

    Corner Stone

    @Corner Stone: As Atrios says of his recent meeting with cabinet officials:
    “They rarely say “we want Congress to pass X, but they won’t, so the best we can hope for is Y.” They say, “maybe it could have been better, but Y was the best we could get done” suggesting that there is some better policy without actually clearly stating what it would be.”
    Now *that’s* the art of the possible baby!

  398. 398.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @mclaren: Dear comrade Mclaren. Yo breakin’ your mommas heart talking like Howard Beale on acid. Down boy, down. Good dog.

  399. 399.

    Uloborus

    …I’ve erased everything I was going to say about Mclaren. I don’t think he can honestly be serious. It’s not just that he’s twisted every aspect of the bill to look at negatives and not positives. He’s wandering into Glenn Beckian apocalyptic fantasies. It’s either a spoof, or he’s kinda crazy and can’t be reasoned with.

    I’m going to weigh in on the BTD bit. I do think there’s a lot of misunderstanding. BTD seems to think, mainly, we bitch too much about Hamsher. The bitching is because Hamsher is actively undercutting HCR as hard as she can because (she claims) it’s not sufficiently progressive, and she gets actual media time for it. But that’s secondary. The bitching that started this post only takes Hamsher as an example of the wider phenomenon of progressives trying to kill this bill by pushing the message that it’s worse than nothing. Cole, and most here, think it is worth fighting for, and these people are stabbing themselves in the back. It gets our dander up, since they could take us with them.

    BTD is not claiming the Stupak Amendment will be passed as an amendment. He’s claiming that Stupak says a separate bill like he wants must be passed first, or he will vote against the HCR bill. In general, no one here seems to think it’s possible that bill can be passed, so Stupak will probably vote against HCR. If you think Stupak can kill the bill by doing so, then yeah, it’s probably dead. Myself, I don’t think he has the support he thinks he has.

    I’m not sure I completely understand his argument about sitting out reform. It does come back again and again to A) The bill won’t do any good (except the Medicare bit). He won’t accept any analysis of the bill that says it will, so how can I address this? People point to articles that say it will. B) We pick on Hamsher too much and she’s doing a justifiable thing by sitting this out. She’s not sitting it out, she’s pushing propoganda to suggest the bill needs to be defeated and is urging progressives to not vote because they didn’t get exactly what they want. The counterargument seems to be that this is a great way to ensure Republican power, rather than progressive power.

    Alright. Does anybody think I misrepresented them except Mclaren?

  400. 400.

    Dollared

    Actually, I ‘m kind of shocked at all of you picking on McLaren. S/he’s right – the Senate’s ability to latch on to insanely expensive fixes that only benefit rich people is ungodly shocking. Seriously, anybody doing what they are doing every day would have gone to prison in the 1970s.

    And the one thing that is missing from the entire discussion is really, really good policy.

    Good policy would be simple, make our country more competitive, result in a healthier population, and cost lots less. But insurance company executives would have to make only $300k a year, and surgeons about the same. So that’s out of the question – don’t even discuss it.

    So PTDB – but change the conversation to something useful and productive. Mr. “I love Republican ideas” promised to do exactly that, and instead has been properly labelled a huge disappointment.

  402. 402.

    Mnemosyne

    @Dollared:

    Actually, I ‘m kind of shocked at all of you picking on McLaren.

    You must be new here. Mclaren’s been bringing the crazy on a pretty regular basis the last couple of weeks and is only getting more incoherent and spittle-flecked as time goes on.

  404. 404.

    bayville

    After Lanny Davis, the person I always search out for political wisdom is Jon Chait.

    Thanks to Jon Chait’s spirited endorsement of Lieberman for President …and Vice President… and for Senate in 2006, I caught the Joementum. And Thank God today we have bellweathers like Joe Lieberman in Washington to give us the straight scoop. And to fight for the little guy, the working man and for Peace in the world.

    Jon Chait’s enthusiastic support of The Iraq War was a big reason why I bought boxes of yellow ribbons to plaster on my car and house in 2003. Support The Troops and all. Once again, Jon Chait was proven correct.
    And with the exception of his boss, Uncle Marty, nobody has been more (rightly) supportive of the Israeli Bombing Campaign-of-the-Month than Jon Chait.
    Peace through bombing I believe is the philosophy Jon Chait supports in the Middle East. Available evidence proves Jon Chait’s Middle East strategy has been very successful, eh?

    So now, thanks in large part to Jon Chait’s pronouncement, I feel it will be unwise for any sensible Democrat to NOT support this great, great, great Health Insurance Industry Subsidy Reform Bill.

  405. 405.

    mclaren

    Ailuridae is, as usual, lying with sociopathic single-mindedness. It’s useful to dissect those lies as a cross-section of the kind of dementia and dishonesty we’re hearing from most of the people in this thread.

    At #79 Aliuridae lied:

    It is impossible to argue coherently that this bill is a bailout to insurance companies when:

    1. They are profitable. Unprofitable, nearly bankrupt companies need to be bailed out.

    Notice how ignorant Ailuridae’s lie is here. The health care insurance cartels, which are monopolies, are currently profitable but heading towards bankruptcy because they’re in a massive death spiral, and they know it. As the insurance cartels dump more and more people off the insurance rolls, they find themselves forced to jack up premiums for the remaining people…which loses customers because more people can’t afford to pay the insurance premiums, which in turn requires the insurance companies to jack up premiums for the ever smaller remainder of insured customers.

    The key here is to look at the total number of uninsured people in America. Is it increasing? Or is it decreasing? It’s increasing rapidly, skyrocketing at a rate which is in turn accelerating with shocking rapidity. The insurance companies are run for soulless corrupt greedy scum, but they’re not stupid — they know this. So the insurance companies can see that as this death spiral worsens, they’ll soon reach a point where they have so few customers that they’ll have to raise rates to the point where no one will be able to pay the premiums.

    So what do the corrupt insurance cartels do?

    Well, being corrupt, and cartels, they bribe their pet congresscritters to force everyone in America to buy their crappy worthless insraunce (which in current policies doesn’t actually insure anything — typical “affordable” policies today force the customer to pay for 70% of medical costs out of pocket, except in cases of maternity care, where the insured must typically pay 100% of costs out of pocket in today’s typical “affordable” insurance plan.)

    So not only is Ailuridae a liar, it’s obvious that Ailuridae is an ignorant liar.

    Ailuridae goes on to lie:

    2. The current state of affairs where there is cap on money that can go from employers to insurance companies untaxed is allowing a huge portion of our nation’s GDP to be consumed by health care. The current health care tax provisions are nothing more than a giveaway to insurance companies. Its impossible to argue that finally taxing that income for the first time ever qualifies as a give away.

    Notice the stupidity of Ailuridae’s lie here — it’s easy to argue that finally taxing that income for the first time ever is a giveaway, because what will happen is that the corrupt greedy insurance cartels will merely jack up their premiums and increase their profits to the point where the new tax doesn’t actually confiscate any of their income. Welcome to the worst of both worlds — skyrocketing premiums, and a whopping big tax.

    Ailuridae inadvertently tells the truth for a moment:

    This is particularly fucking stupid.

    Yes. Yes, it is. Everything Ailuridae says is particularly f*cking stupid. But we’ve come to expect that.

    Half of the bill is an expansion of Medicaid. So unless we are deciding that providing insurance to people who are under the actual poverty line isn’t progressive at least half of the bill is a huge progressive achievement.

    Notice the incomeptence of Ailuridae’s lie. Just because the federal government passes a mandate requiring states to cover millions more people under medicaid, Ailuridae foolishly and ignorant assumes that people will actually get covered. But out here in the real world, the states are broke. They’re going down for the third time, drowning in debt, shutting down everything, laying off state police, shutting down state government offices, closing parks, ending basic state government services because the states have no money to even keep the lights on in government offices.

    As demand for care swells, many states cutting medicaid

    Facing relentless fiscal pressure and exploding demand for government health care, virtually every state is making or considering substantial cuts in Medicaid, even as Democrats push to add 15 million people to the rolls.

    Tossing federal funding at the problem won’t help, because most of the states in America are so broke (with a handful of exceptions like Alaska) that their state deficits are rising much faster than the federal government can dump money in for medicaid.

    In order to actually make the medicaid expansion work, the federal government would first have to bail out all the states in the union so that they don’t have an operating deficit, and then supply the states with the extra money they’d need for all those millions of new medicaid recipients. But the federal government has (as we’ve seen) consistently refused to bail out all the states that are insolvent, and for a very good reason — moral hazard. If the states know they can run deficits and merely run to the federal government for help, there’s no incentive for the individual states not to overspend.

    So, as Obama decided with Califronia, the individual states will get no help with their ever-mounting deficits. This means that most of the states are insolvent and will stay insolvent, and the condition will keep getting worse. So passing a law expanding medicaid and then blithely informing the states, “Oh, here’s some new money, now pay for millions of new medicaid recipients” accomplishes nothing. The states are insolvent. They don’t have money to keep the lights on in their state offices, they’re certainly not going to take new federal money and expand medicaid rolls.

    On the contrary — states are slashing medicaid as fast as they can because in most states, that’s one of the single largest expenses, and the states are drowning in red ink.

    So we get stories like:

    “Many more states have reduced the amount that they pay to doctors, clinics, hospitals, and nursing homes who treat Medicaid recipients. Already Medicaid is rejected by many health care providers because it tends to pay at a level far below private insurance and Medicare. These reimbursement cuts ensure that fewer Medicaid patients will be able to find treatment, and those clinics and hospitals that do so will be further driven to reduce costs and quality.” (op. cit.)

    As even the dullest fool can see, since most health care providers already refuse to accept medicaid, it’s largely worthless right now, and will become increasingly worthless as the states slash their medicaid reimbursement rates even further. So the so-called “expansion” of medicaid is nothing of the kind — just another scam, more smoke and mirror designed to dump poor people on the street to die while sounding as though the government is doing something to help. Standard stuff.

    So, as we can see, Ailuridae is not only a liar, but an ignorant liar — and not just an ignorant liar, but an ignorant incompetent liar.

    Par for the course. As usual for the demented discourse here, essentially every argument in favor of this abomination of a health care “reform” bill is either an outright lie, massive disinformation, or psychotic dementia with no connection to reality.

  406. 406.

    IronyAbounds

    @mclaren:

    Who exactly is the “health cartel?” The major problem with the cost of health care in this country is the fee for service model that has developed. Insurance companies may be blood-sucking vampires, but they are not the major problem when it comes to costs. Given that, do you or anyone else honestly believe that legislation can immediately be put into place that junks the fee for service model overnight, or that suddenly opening Medicare to all will not have some serious negative repercussions in terms of doctors not being willing to treat everyone at reduced Medicare rates. Many doctors aren’t treating Medicare patients as is. The fee for service model has to go, but it will take a gradual transformation, not an immediate outright ban. The bill now pending isn’t perfect by any means, but it has some of the incentives for moving toward a better system built in.

  407. 407.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @mclaren:

    Ailuridae is, as usual, lying with sociopathic

    If you insist on calling everyone on this blog a sociopath, people will start to talk. In fact they already have. Give it a rest there sparky, why don’t you.

  408. 408.

    NR

    @CalD: So what? A week ago, there were less than 30 Senators that had signed that letter.

    Also – a letter is not a vote. Were there 419 House members who signed a letter calling for repeal of the antitrust exemption?

  409. 409.

    tam1MI

    The fact is one reason HCR is on the ropes is because it polls so badly, or at least much worse than it should. All those “disapprove” votes are not conservatives, they include a significant number of Hamsheresque folks who oppose it

    This is what kind of puzzles me about all the attacks on Hamsher and the parts of the party who share her opinion. The Senate made sure to scrub out the things in the bill that progressives supported, and now everyone is gobsmacked that progressives don’t support the bill? Above and beyond the fact that, last I checked, viciously berating people is not exactly the best tactic to bring them around to your position.

    It just seems to me that the pragmatic thing to do would have been to leave in something the progressives enthusiastically supported. Or at least get rid of something they hated (the “Cadillac tax” springs instantly to mind). If indeed, as Jon Chait suggests, the lack of support from the “Hamsherites” is important to the passage of the bill, wouldn’t including things in the bill to ensure their support have been the sensible, pragmatic thing to do?

    As it stands, I think “pragmatic realists” better stop trying to bash Hamsher and her followers into supporting a bill they have long since stopped supporting – the approach is clearly counterproductive – and just simply resign themselves to the fact that they will have to factor in resistance from certain portions of the base into their calculations. It sucks for supporters of HCR, but it’s reality. I also humbly suggest that those supporters start thinking of some Plan B’s in case HCR does not pass, because right now as far as I can see it’s strictly 50/50 proposition. Being pragmatic means being prepared.

  410. 410.

    bayville

    @mclaren:

    Dude, you’re banging your head against a brickwall here.
    But I have faith that Speaker Cantor and President Romney will readdress this issue and correct its deficencies in 2013.

  411. 411.

    mclaren

    Mnemosyne launches into hi/r customary round of sociopathic compulsive lies:

    Mclaren’s been bringing the crazy on a pretty regular basis the last couple of weeks and is only getting more incoherent and spittle-flecked as time goes on.

    It’s “crazy” to cite documented facts. This is one of the most embarrassing aspects of this forum, which has become increasingly dominated by demented name-calling over the last month or so. Anyone who disagrees with the crackpot majority gets labeled “mentally ill.” Most recently, Glenn Greenwald, one of the most respected liberal journalists, was savaged by the kooks and cranks and crakpots on this forum as “insane” and “crazy” and so forth. Merely because he said some things with which the crackpot majority here happened to disagree.

    We’ve seen what that process does in the Republican party. Disagree with torture? You’re a moonbat. Disagree with endless unlimited tax cuts for the rich? You’re crazy. Disagree with endless wars all over the globe that we can’t afford, fueled by limitless inceases in military spending that bankrupt the U.S.? You’re out of your mind, a nutter, a raving spittle-flecked lunatic.

    FACT: Most insurance companies in America are monopolistic cartels engaged in price-fixing and collusion. This health care “reform” bill does nothing to fix that.

    FACT: Standard tests like CAT scans in America cost $1400 to $3200 while the exact same test with the exact same CAT scanner in France or Germany costs $40. This health care “reform” bill does nothing to fix that.

    FACT: Doctors and nurses in America are grossly overpaid compared to the rest of the developed, making 2x to 5x what doctors and nurses make in the rest of the G7. This health care “reform” bill does nothing to fix that unsustainable trend.

    FACT: Most insurance companies are in a death spiral of ever-rising premiums and ever-shrinking numbers of people who can afford to pay for insurance. The current health care “reform” only “fixes” this situation by forcing Americans, at the point of a government bayonet, to buy crappy overpriced insurance that doesn’t actually insure them (typical “affordable insurance today forces the insured to pay for most medical costs out of pocket). That’s not a fix, that’s just using the power of government to enforce a private capitalist monopoly at the point of a gun.

    FACT: Most states in the U.S. are broke, and slashing medicaid reimbursements as fast as they can. Most doctors and hospitals already refuse to accept medicaid because the current reimursement rates are so low, and they’re plummeting even lower as states become increasingly insolvent. So the so-called “expansion” of medicaid is just smoke and mirrors and will do nothing to actually increase medical care for those millions of new medicaid patients. They’ll just be left on the street die because the states have slashed medicaid reimbursement rates so low that no doctor or hospital can afford to accept medicaid.

    Naturally, stating these documented facts makes me “insane” and “spittle-flecked” and “gibbering” and “hysterical” and “mentally ill” and “retarded.”

    It’s worth asking yourself whether this kind of smear tactic has worked well for the Republicans.

    The Republicans smeared all the members of their party who cited documented facts as “insane” and “moonbats” and “spitt-flecked” and “gibbering,” and the result is a Republican party full of tea partiers.

    Do the people at Balloon Juice really think that driving out everyone who cites documented facts is going to end well for liberals?

    Think about it.

  413. 413.

    bayville

    @tam1MI:

    Above and beyond the fact that, last I checked, viciously berating people is not exactly the best tactic to bring them around to your position.

    But Jon Chait and Mattie Y and Ezra and Silver have all been in the trenches for decades fighting on behalf of unions – sitting right there hand-in-hand with their working brethren – in marathon collective bargaining sessions with cut throat corporate management types.
    These guys really, really, really care about the “little guys”, the unions, the cops, teachers et al. They ain’t diplomats. They speak truth to power constantly and sometimes they have trouble turning off the hyperbole when they speak to us plebes.

    I can understand. They is a lot smarter than us too.

  415. 415.

    Ailuridae

    @mclaren:

    You’re a poseur of immense proportions.

    Every argument you are trying to start here in this thread you have already lost. Repeatedly. You just choose to pop into new threads and pretend that isn’t the case.

    At least you dropped your lies about recission and pre-existing conditions. So that’s a start.

    You also clearly have no idea how Medicaid funding works.

  416. 416.

    Keith G

    @mclaren: Them’s a lot of words you’re typing, there.

    Back away from the meth pipe. We don’t want you hurting yourself.

  419. 419.

    bayville

    @mclaren:

    Heathcare facts have a well-known Anti-Obama bias.
    So I dismiss all of those accurate, illustrative statistics you cite based on that bias.

  421. 421.

    bayville

    @General Egali Tarian Stuck:

    I think this is a great, great, great bill. I’d vote for it 20 times if I were allowed. I’ve been dialing Reps. Adler, Holt, Smith and Andrews phone #s all last week.

    Pass the Bill! Pass the Bill! Pass the Bill!

  422. 422.

    DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)

    @General Egali Tarian Stuck:

    I figured that this is what happens when a sociopath decides to become a shrink, they like to think that they are the voice of experience when it comes to diagnosing a sociopath.

    Gotta give mclaren credit for the volume of froth though. It’s very foamy tonight! Quality suffers with quantity but that’s just how it is.

    Some observations about the appearance of BTD here today:

    BTD has been a busy little guy today! As of post 377, BTD has almost made one out of every five posts in this thread. Add to that number his handle being mentioned almost 100 times by responders and you have the usual BTD-centric site that BTD has been craving since his dive into irrelevancy. TalkLeft just isn’t filling the void any more.

    Diagnosis? Obsessively irrelevant, oblivious to the obvious and in a search of the limelight, that’s our BTD!

  424. 424.

    JSpencer

    I just can’t think of anything bad enough to say about Bart Stupak. I’m mostly an Albert Schweitzer type (really) but I think I might enjoy squashing him like the bug he is.

  425. 425.

    Laertes

    Attention self-styled “hippies”: Fuck you. I’m as left as you or more. You don’t get to imagine that you’re to my left just because you value your purity over delivering the goods.

    It really pisses me off that people think this is about “dirty fucking hippies” versus centrist pragmatists. Bullshit. I’m dirty, I’m fucking, and I’m a hippie. And if this is the deal that’s on the table, I’ll take it. Any so-called leftie who wouldn’t is a stupid wanker and a tool of the establishment.

  426. 426.

    mclaren

    Finally, we get a clue for the reason behind the dementia on this forum about health care.

    Ignorance.

    Simple, blind, appalling ignorance.

    You people are totally ignorant of the facts.

    @IronyAbounds:

    Who exactly is the “health cartel?”

    Clearly, you people are grossly ignorant of the health care cartels that monopolize markets and collude to fix prices and drive up health care costs.

    Here are some links to help you out. The first one is an article from Slate magazine:

    The Fix Is In: The hidden public-private cartel that sets health care prices.”

    Why does a CAT scan cost between $1400 and $3200 here in America when the exact same CAT scan with the exact same machine costs $40 in France or Germany? Not because of the “fee-for-service model,” but because of medical cartels that collude to fix prices and drive up costs. And they driv eup costs not just by 10% or 12%, but by 10,000% or more. A cheap plastic medical device like a restractor that costs $12 to manufacture gets sold for $1200.

    And here’s another link, this time to an investigative article in the San Francisco Chronicle:

    Experts warn of medical industry cartel’s power

    “The planned spike in health insurance rates by Anthem Blue Cross in California is just the tip of a Titanic-size iceberg of exorbitant price increases, secret pricing and consolidation not only by insurers – but by the hospitals, doctors and medical devicemakers that send the bills to the insurers.

    “Insurers, who strike deals with providers, pass the bills on to patients, businesses and governments. The nation is fast being bankrupted by a medical money machine that costs $2.5 trillion a year and takes more than $1 of every $6 that Americans earn. (..)

    “Insurers blame hospitals and doctors, doctors blame insurers, and hospitals blame doctors and medical devicemakers in what academics call an inscrutable medical-industrial complex that rivals anything the defense industry ever invented. All these groups are combining into what many experts describe as cartels.

    “Many industry insiders are afraid to speak on the record for fear of antagonizing the medical groups they rely on for their survival. Contracting practices are draped in secrecy. Prices are almost impossible to obtain because of “confidentiality agreements” among hospitals, physician groups, insurers and devicemakers who do not want their markups exposed to competition or public scrutiny. (..)

    Christina Bernstein, a medical-device engineer and independent sales representative based in San Francisco, sells disposable surgical tools made mostly out of plastic that she estimates are manufactured for about $40 each. These are marked up and sold to hospitals for as much as $350, she said, for a single use in a surgery on a patient.

    “But if you were to get a detailed bill of what the hospital was charging the insurance company for the insured patient, those things get marked up to something like $1,200,” Bernstein said. “It’s ridiculous. There’s no open competition.”

    “With doctors and hospitals sprinkled in every congressional district and wielding their clout, a year of health reform in Congress has overlooked some of the biggest cost drivers in American medicine.

    “While the talk surrounding health reform has been about problems with the health insurance market, and I don’t want to suggest that’s entirely misplaced, I think market power on the part of providers, doctors and hospitals is a bigger issue,” said Martin Gaynor, an economist at Carnegie Mellon University.”

    (op. cit.)

    Here’s another link, since you people are obviously and pervasively uninformed about the basic operation of America’s corrupt collusive monopolistic health care doctor-insurance-medical-devicemaker cartel system:

    Health insurers are making you an offer they don’t care if you refuse.

    The market concentration for health insurance is so monopolized in some areas that insurance companies are willing to raise prices and lose customers in an effort to improve their bottom line, a leading insurance broker told Wall Street analysts on Wednesday.

    In a conference call organized by Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research, Steve Lewis, a highly regarded broker at the world’s third largest insurance broker, Willis, painted a picture of the health insurance market in which employers seem likely to be priced out of coverage. . . .

    Insurers are able to do this in part because the markets in which they operate have no adequate competition, suggests Lewis. . . . employers in many markets know `that they’re not going to be able to trade down pricing very significantly’ (i.e. find cheaper coverage) and, as such, would likely only change plans or become self-insured if there was a `fairly significant’ disruption in service.

    . . . The remarks are as clear an indication as any that while the health insurance industry suffered greatly from the recession it remains remarkably well positioned to recoup those profits going forward — principally because companies can raise prices without worrying about the market hit it will take.”

    (op. cit.)

    Remember: the reporters and economists and state insurance commissioners and university professors who point out these documented facts are “insane,” they’re “spittle-flecked,” they’re “bringing on the crazy,” they’re “demented,” they’re “mentally ill,” they’re “retarded” and “off their meds” and “in need of thorazine.”

    That’s the way this forum deals with any facts they don’t like — scream that the people who cite those documented are crazy.

    Keep it up, kooks. You’re destroying your credibility so fast, everyone can hear a sonic boom.

  427. 427.

    bayville

    @General Egali Tarian Stuck:

    I did answer your question. I support this utterly fantastic piece of groundbreaking legislation. I mean, my WellPoint stock was up 20-percent over the past six months – until the fuddy duddy BillKillers starting gaining momentum the last week or so.

    I’m hoping when Massa leaves office tomorrow, that stock, along with the few shares I own in Humana (+30% over the last six months) and Aetna (only +8% over 6 mths), those fabulous companies will gain some much-needed investment.

    My fingers are crossed.

  428. 428.

    bayville

    @Laertes:

    Bravo and well said.
    Not sure what exactly your point is though, other than you are fucking and dirty and hip and, it would seem, rather hostile.

  429. 429.

    Ailuridae

    @mclaren:

    You are not the first poster here who has pointed out the primary source of inflation in medical care costs is related to the phenomenal amount of money this country pays its doctors, especially its specialists. I am certainly not ignorant of that fact. Additionally a lot of people here, myself included are acutely aware that a huge part of that drive up in doctors salaries is based on a structure for medical hiring that prevents competition.

    But its tough to know that fact and then claim that its insurance companies who are the villains in this whole scenario.

  430. 430.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @bayville: Do you think we are any more pleased with what we got than you, or anybody else? I mean, just because we don’t whine about it day in and day out and get tired of those who do, and oppose those who want to kill the bill, does that really make us worshippers of Obama, or anyone else? Crying over spilt milk accomplishes exactly nothing, and is especially tiring when that disappoint leads to projection of hostility toward those who just accept the reality of things and move on.

  434. 434.

    DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)

    @tc125231:

    Hmmm. You’re a part of “this crowd” posting here and yet you seem to be convinced by mclaren. Or are there two “crowds”? Is there a “this” crowd and ‘that’ crowd? Do you think that the “this” crowd is trying to ruin everything and ‘that’ crowd is doing the honorable thing and standing athwart history, shouting “STOP!” ?

    For being a site that is regularly accused of having a ‘my way or the highway’ mind-meld going on, there sure is a lot of verbal jousting going on.

    Yup, we’re one big happy family here at BJ. The perfect union of everything that is right and good in the universe, not a single note of discord is allowed on these hallowed pages. Everyone sings the same tune, on key, loud and proud.

    Blithering fuckwits.

    @Laertes:

    Oh no you didn’t! If we’re going to whip out our political schlongs to compare then…

    … ziiiiippp…         THUNK!

    Notice that it fell to the left and  landed behind me? Your turn…

  435. 435.

    gwangung

    @Laertes: Yeah, playing “more progressive than thou” was pretty outworn 35 years ago, let alone in the 21st Century.

    I respect the passion and the goals; the tactics, not so much…

  436. 436.

    Keith G

    @mclaren:

    yeah, our pathetic health care system needs to get better, yesterday. Your massive verbage points out problems, but where are your real fixes?

    Example:

    FACT: Standard tests like CAT scans in America cost $1400 to $3200 while the exact same test with the exact same CAT scanner in France or Germany costs $40. This health care “reform” bill does nothing to fix that.

    OK a 16 slice CT scanner costs more than a million $$. The specialized suite cost at least $500,000 to build out. The price for a lung ct to find cancer is around $750 in some parts of the US.

    My point here is that a $40 scan is a heavily subsidized price. I have no problem with that, but who pays?

    I would posit that some drs. are over paid. Sure pay them less. Many of those drs are boomers ready to retire. Squeeze their margins and they are gone. Poof! Even fewer doc in high need areas. Cutting their pay needs to be done very carefully or you get less care not more. Sad but true.

    Bottom line: you are pumping out a ton of crap, but you are not saying anything that helps or is meaningful.

  437. 437.

    taylormattd

    @BTD: of course you revert to form Armando: being a total douchbag. It’s shocking that you weren’t banned my Markos years earlier with you lunatic behavior, the same trolling and inexpicably illogical leaps you take.

    It is in no way, shape, or form a “lie” to say you advocated killing the bill in your post. You advocated killing the bill when you write this:

    In terms of progressive activists, it is clear that they have been completely rolled in this process and were given absolutely nothing. The good parts of the bill (Medicaid expansion, theoretically, the better regulations, though I have no confidence in the enforcement mechanisms) were not controversial and should not be seen as concessions to progressives. Indeed, I expect they would be passed separately if the Senate bill fails. In short, progressives got nothing in the political bargaining.

    In my view, they should not lift a finger to get these bills passed. If progressives EVER want to wield even a smidgen of influence, they have to be prepared to sit on the sidelines if they do not get what they want. Let the winners in this bill do the work for getting it passed. It’s their bill after all. Not progressives.

    Only somebody stupid, delusional, drunk, or deliberately disingenous would try and parse in such a way to claim this wasn’t advocating killing the bill. Just keep your stupid fucking trolling at Talk Left. Pathetic.

  439. 439.

    reality-based

    @NR:

    Ok, I think this comment wins the thread – my vote, anyway.

    And pardon me if I ignore Jonathon Chait Hippie-punching – during the run-up to to Iraq, he pummeled us DFHs day and night for daring to SUGGEST that W’s Excellent Mesopotamian Adventure might be a bad idea.

    I just keep wondering – WHY is JC so obsessed with punching Hippies? And defending Rahm?

    It was RAHM and his appease-the-right strategy that got us here, in the first place. So why are you kicking the hippies now? It wasn’t OUR idea to turn the whole thing over to Max Baucus, after all.

    (there – how’s THAT for taking gasoline from a previous thread, and sprinkling it on the conflagration here?)

  440. 440.

    reality-based

    @General Egali Tarian Stuck:

    you said:

    (insurance Companies) will by and large accept the new rules, and follow them. And more congressional actions will need to be taken to plug those loopholes. It is what happens to all regulatory efforts on any industry. But claiming “nothing” will be done is wrong. I have experience with this as a former federal regulator.

    Yes, see, and this I where I think it’s the DFHs who are the realistic ones here. WHO exactly, is going to be enforcing these 85% medical payouts and No bad-faith Reccission and no denial of pre-existing conditions?

    Why, since these policies are sold through state-based exchanges – it will be the State Insurance Commissioners. .

    boy howdy – THAT will make the insurance companies shape up, won’t it? Especially since – to take one example – the state of Califronia fined Blue Cross some millions of dollars for bad-faith recissions, Blue Cross has simply not paid the fines, and the California Insurance regulators don’t have the resources to Enforce the fines. And that’s California – imagine the games the insurance companies will play in, say , Oklahoma.

    And since you admit that stronger federal regulation will be needed – exactly how many years and scorched-earth legislative fights will it take to get these regulations passed in Congress and enforced? Three? Five? Ten? After all, the attempts to more closely regulate banks and create a consumer finance protection agency have been going so well – I’m sure regulating the insurance companies will be just as easy!

    Oh, and by the way – WHO is going to be enforcing the individual mandates that deliver millions of and millions of new suckers customers to the Insurance companies?

    Why, it’s the long arm of the Federal Government and the IRS!

    You also said:

    And with health care, people care when they get screwed, and now will have a legal course to take, or a political one with their reps.

    Well, how, precisely, is that different from the status quo? Hell, you can sue your insurance company NOW. Of course, you’ll die before you collect – but you have that right now.

    So to recap. let’s say HCR passes (and I am PTDB, but only about 51-49%). And eighteen months from now, the mighty arm of the US Federal Government and the IRS is going to force you to purchase health Insurance from a private insurance company.

    Which health insurance is going to be regulated by the same state insurance commissioners who are already failing at the job. And so, you have to buy the shitty insurance these private companies want to sell you – while they fight tooth and nail against any federal enforcement of EXISTING regulations in the HCR bill, let alone allowing new ones to pass.

    And again with my “The DFH’s are the realists here” theme – HOW is this going to be a winning platform in 2012 and 2014?

    “Vote for us – we’re the ones who made you give your dollars to Aetna. Sorry about the injunction they got contesting the 85% payout, and the lawsuit they filed seeking to overturn the pre-existing condition ban. So yeah, we’re sorry that you’re paying a ton of money for shitty insurance, and that we made you do it – but HEY! Isn’t HCR GREAT! “

  441. 441.

    mclaren

    Ailuridae, for the first time — the very first time — you’ve actually engaged with this discussion and offered a substantive reply, rather than your previous name-calling and Joseph-McCarthy-style “mentally ill” smear tactics.

    So now we can have a serious debate about the issue, finally.

    You mentioned that you agree that overpaid doctors are part of the problem with health care costs here in America. You then go on to remark that this seems to conflict with my assertion that insurance company cartels, acting as monopolies, are also part of the problem with health care costs here in America.

    Actually not. The mistake you’re making here is to assume that it’s a one-or-the-other situation. You’re looking for a silver bullet, some simple single reason why American health care costs so much more than in any other G7 country, yet our health care delivery system is much worse, with far more people unable to get health care, and an increasing percentage of those who do have insurance, unable to afford the skyrocketing co-pays and deductibles which (in effect) pushes most of the burden of health care payment onto the insured.

    Alas, there isn’t a single simple reason why America’s health care delivery system is so dysfunctional. It’s a complex of interlocking reasons. Overpaid doctors, and even more to the point, wildly overpaid nurses, are part of the problem — but insanely overpaid hospital administrators are just as big a part of the problem. Did you know that the typical hospital administrator makes well into the mid-6-figures? That’s absurd and indefensible. The problem wildly overpaid staff goes all the way down to technicians. Google radiological technicians — these are glorified button-pushers with a 2-year A.S. degree. Almost no education required, and their duties are nominal. A bright high schooler could be taught that job in 6 weeks. Yet a radiological technician makes between $40K and $59k per year, which is shockingly out of proportion to what they actually do. The wildly overpaid jobs go right on down to the hospital orderlies, who basically push wheelchairs and empty bedpans, but get paid absurd amounts of money. Hospital orderlies have no more job skills than the typical janitor, yet a janitor usually makes minimum wage, while a hospital orderly typically makes 2x to 3x minimum wage.

    So the problem with overpaid personnel runs right from the top, with specialists like orthopedic surgeons pulling in millions per years. to the bottom, with hospital orderlies grossly overpaid for what they do. There’s only one explanation why everyone in a hospital is so incredibly overpaid — because so much money is sloshing through hospitals today that it leaks on down to the lowest levels. There’s such incredible amounts of cash gushing through our health care system that everyone gets a taste of that giant river of gold, even the hospital orderlies. The same economic process is going on in health care that goes on in the restaurants around Wall Street — you’ll find that the waiters get much much bigger tips than in other restaurants in New York, even though the waiters don’t have any special skills to justify that increased pay. The waiters simply happen to work in a profession that’s very close to huge amounts of money, so some of that gigantic Niagara river of cash sloshes into those waiters’ pockets. Same deal with everyone who works at a hospital.

    The insurance cartels act as monopolies and they collude with doctors and hospitals to drive up prices, and insurers are part of the problem too. Notice that insurers represent part of an interlocking web of self-dealing and collusion — it’s not an either/or situation. Both the insurers and the doctors/hospitals collude to drive up prices because it benefits both parties.

    The medical devicemakers are the part of this equation usually left out of the discussion. They’re as guilty as anyone else, arguably more so. If you look at simple medical devices like heart monitors, they’re not that complicated. Yet the cost is stupefying. Medical devicemakers charge shocking amounts of money because they know they can get it — once again, because there’s such a fanastically lucrative river of gold gushing through every hospital and every medical clinic. Everyone’s getting rich, so the medical devicemakers figure, why should we make out like bandits too?

    Many so-called “medical devices” are made of cheap plastic and are no more complex than a spork. Yet these disposable medical “devices,” which are glorified bacon tongs or that sort of thing made out of cheap throwaway plastic, are priced at insane values like $1000 and $1200. The prices don’t matter because the devicemakers know the cost will just get passed along by the doctors to the insurers, and the insurers know the costs will just get passed along to the employers, so what do they care?

    We’ve got a fundamentally corrupt health care delivery system in America that works (or rather, fails to work) in the same dysfunctional was as the Pentagon weapons procurement system. Both systems have been locked for decades into a death spiral of ever-increasing cost and ever-decreasing efficacy, with worse and worse results for more and more money. Both systems are largely impenetrable and unauditable, protected by layers of non-disclosure agreements and sweeheart deals and interlocking groups of musical-chairs personnel (in the Pentagon, procurement officers go to work for giant defense contractors after they retire as a reward for pushing through non-working insanely overpriced weapons system that usually get cancelled 10 years down the road because they don’t even work; in the health care system, doctors wind up employed by medical devicemakers or insurers as a reward for colluding to jack up prices and keep that sweet sweet river of gold going for everyone).

    At this point, both the Pentagon military budget and the American health care delivery system are radically unsustainable. So it doesn’t matter what I say or what you think. Both these systems are doomed. There is not enough money in the universe to keep these dysfunctional systems going. They’re both locked into a death spiral, and it’s only a question of when these malfunctioning systems collapse, not if.

    The current health care bill does nothing to fix this death spiral. As Bayville points out above, the evidence from the jump in health care stocks strongly suggests that the health care bill in the senate will make things worse. Thus the hot money from the hedge funds pouring into those Wellpoint and Humana stocks. The vultures know this bill stakes the American consumer out in the desert and they’re salivating as they circle, dreaming of pecking out his eyes and feasting on his liver.

  442. 442.

    mclaren

    @Keith G:

    You’re shifting the goal-posts. This thread starts out with a rah-rah gung-ho call to “pass this bill!” Eventually reality seeped into this thread, most spectacularly in the form of the post by Reality-Based just above. That post does a superb job of pointing out all the reasons why this bill won’t reform anything, and will merely make things worse at every level.

    To add just a little bit to the post by Reality-Based, the claims about enforcement are a crock. Even if the states do manage to enforce, the doctor-insurer-medical-devicemakers will simply collude to jack up prices such that any fine, no matter how large, will be offset by the increased prices. This kind of collusion is very hard to eradicate once it gets systematically ingrained because each party can point at the other party. The insurers squawk, “But the doctors are charging more!” when the state regulators hammer the insurers. Then when the state regulators go after the doctors, they point at the medical devicemakers and squawk, “But the devicemakers raised their prices!” And then when the state regulators go after the devicemakers, they blow smoke up the regulators’ asses with tall tales about “the pace of technology” and “increasing raw materials costs” and blah blah blah. Just as with the broken corrupt Pentagon procurement system, the health care death spiral isn’t actually auditable and everyone points to everyone else as the culprit for skyrocketing costs. So in the end, no one gets punished or regulated, and that sweet sweet river of gold keeps flowing for all parties as the prices skyrocket far out of control and the end results keeps getting worse and worse.

    But to add a little to what Reality-Based mentioned, the insurance exchanges and medicaid expansion represent a particularly vicious scam. Have you looked into what it takes to qualify for medicaid? If you have assets of more than $3000 to $4000 (depending on the state), you’re ineligible for medicaid. Think about that. Do you own a car? The state takes what you paid for that car and counts it on the books as your personal assets. Poof! No medicaid for you!

    Even if you don’t own a car, the states will go through your apartment and take a look at your computer, your cellphone, the clothes in your closet, you kitchen utensils, your TV, add up what you originally paid for ’em. Guess what? Chances are, all that added together comes to more than $3K. So you’re ineligible for medicaid.

    The plain fact of the matter is that unless you’re homeless, you are pretty well not eligible for medicaid. So expanding medicaid is a scam right from the git-go. The people who are going to be needing medicaid are the folks making between minimum wage ($15K per year) and $35K per year for an individiual. But chances are you have got a laptop and a cellphone and a TV and clothes in the closet and a car, if you do, too bad, bubba, no medicaid for you. State qualification requirements for medicaid are savagely restrictive…and as 15 million new recipients get dumped on the state rolls, guess what?

    Yes indeedy, the state eligibility requirements for medicaid will just get more restrictive. Because, you see, the states are broke. They have no money. So the states have no choice.

    The entire medicaid expansion claim is a scam. People will get dumped off of medicaid by this bill, not put on. The net number of people in America on medicaid will plummet if this bill goes through, because the states will panic and jack up medicaid eligibility to the point where almost none of the new recipients who need it will qualify.

    Then there’s the issue of insurance exchanges. Various kool-aid drinkers have touted these exchanges as a “fundamental change in the way insurance works.” Nope, just another scam. The exchanges are deliberately set to such a small size, 3 million people nationally all told, that they have no pricing power. With such a small number of people, the exchanges won’t be able to bargain for good prices with the insurers, so people in the exchanges will find that their costs are higher than the equivalent cost for the exact same insurance for someone who gets that insurance from a private employer.

    This is deliberate, of course. The doctor-insurer-medical-devicemaker cartels wrote the senate bill so that costs would rise. That’s the whole point of the bill — to increase the river of gold flowing into the health care carrtel’s bank accounts. So you will have a choice with the senate bill: pay much more than you can afford for private insurance as an individual, or pay more than you can afford for insurance through an exchange. Either way, you can’t afford it now — and just wait as premiums rise over time. If you can afford it today, you won’t be able to afford it tomorrow, because there are no meaningful cost controls here.

    This thread started out with the “Pass the senate bill!” hysteria. Now that people have started to tacitly admit that the senate bill makes things worse, the kool aid is starting to wear off and folks are wandering around through the Jim Jones compound looking at all the dead bodies and asking, “But then what’s the solution?”

    At least you guys are starting to realize that the senate bill is a problem that needs to be solved, not a solution.

    There are 3 solution as I see it.

    [1] Obama goes balls to the wall for single-payer. Here are a couple of little ideas, just notions for a hypothetical alternative universe… When the congress and lobbyists and the Republicans shriek, “But single-payed is IMPOSSIBLE! We don’t have the votes for it!!!” Obama could say, “Okay, not a problem. I’m declaring a national emergency. America’s national security and economic competitiveness is threatened by our current dysfunctional health care system, so as of now, all doctors and nurses and hospitals are being nationalized. Anyone who protests gets declared an enemy combatant.”

    After that sinks in, Obama could say, “Of course, there is an alternative. You could pass a single-payer national health care system through congress. Your choice. Work as a nationalized member of the new American medical militaia for $1 per day plus food and housing…or, if you’re a doctor or a nurse, you can work as part of America’s new single-payer national health care system. Either way, you’ll make less money than you do now, but if you go with single-payer, you’ll make a decent living. If I have to impress ever doctor in America into a nationalized system, you’ll get $1 a day. Up to you. Choose.”

    Then there’s the kinder, gentler alternative… Obama could start with single-payer and threaten to nationalize the whole system and declare a national emergency, and then bargain down to a massive public option. Expand medicare to everyone. Those are the two choices: single-payer, or nationwide medicare in a giant insurance pool with prices negotiation by the government. Add in some sanctions with teeth, like mandatory federal death penalty for unjustied recission or excessive profiteering, and you’ve got a winner.

    There’s a third option: Obama could mobilize everyone in America to get into the streets and jam into every congressman’s and senator’s office. Millions of sick people crowding into Washington clamoring for reform. Obama could ship in homeless people to cough tuburcular sputum in senators’ faces until the senators change their votes.

    And if the senators refuse to change their votes? No problemo, get hardcore. Obama shuts down funding for congress. The lights go out. The heating goes off. Obama withholds funding for the Iraq and Afghan wars. You want to play hardball? Let’s play hardball. Shut the government down. Then you override with a 61-vote margin? Fine, the funds still get withheld by sequestration. Push them to the wall, then push harder. I’m pretty sure that with hundreds of thousands of American citizens screaming at them for reform and Obama playing hardball, the congressmen and senators will blink. It’s really really hard to explain why you need to stand firm to let sick people die when you’re a millionaire senator.

    Then there’s option number four. And what’s behind Door Number Four, Monty? Why, I’ll tell, you Jim — behind Door Number Four we have the total collapse of the American health care system. Burning hospitals, mountains of corpses due to the next pandemic, perhaps bird flu, perhaps some variant of the Spanish Flu from 1919, perhaps a combo of ebola and Marburg that blends with rhinovirus so it’s now airborne and transmissible by people coughing or sneezing. Whatever, when the collapse hits, America’s unsustainable health care system will get fixed. The survivors will make sure of it.

    My personal guess is that we’re headed for option four. Right now the only people who seem to give a damn enough to demonstrate in public about health care are the tea baggers who are demonstrating against it.

    In any case, time will tell.

  443. 443.

    Quiddity

    Well, there certainly are a lot of opinions in this comment thread, but no definitive proof that any are correct.

    I guess we’ll have to see how it all turns out – assuming HCR legislation is passed. Personally, I have my doubts that it will be a success.

    Here’s how I think it will go. HCR is passed but pretty soon garners complaints over affordability issues (just as with Romneycare). There will be a move to rollback the legislation but also a desire to keep people insured. The “solution”? To federalize Medicaid (instead of having states set the standards – which now vary considerably), but retain eligibility such that people have to divest themselves of virtually all assets to qualify. It won’t be “emergency room” health care. It will be government coverage, but with the requirement that you be very poor to get it. That’s no picnic, and pretty miserable compared to other developed countries, but it’s what I expect.

    I’m not sure if this country will ever have majority support for moving away from a profit making, market oriented health care system. Single payer is viewed as heresy and I don’t know how you can change that attitude. Perhaps it would change if the profit/market health care system is viewed as making the U.S. less productive, and hence less competitive than other countries. That might take three decades to sink in.

  444. 444.

    the farmer

    comment #439
    WHY is JC so obsessed with punching Hippies?

    Give it up. Put your little dirty fucking hippy straw-doll down and spare us the stage prop dramatics. The poor punched-out DFH is an overused poppet. And chanting “WHY is [insert favorite DFH puncher here] so obsessed with punching Hippies?” has become as tiresome as the “why do you hate the troops” canard. When did “stop punching hippies” turn into the the equivalent of Sarah Palin’s stop punching Baby Trigg invocation? So just knock it off, will ya.

    *

  445. 445.

    bob h

    We’ll just have to make sure we have bigger majorities in 2045 when we get another shot at this

    Actually we could hope that before that, we will lose a war to a benevolent superpower who will insist, a la Japan 1945, that we provide ourselves with a decent healthcare system.

  446. 446.

    brantl

    You know, if you hadn’t had some of the progressive left shaping this bill in the first place, it would suck republican ball-washing water even worse than it does now. And if Obama had gotten on board with some goddamn bill early on and PUSHED, they could have gotten a much better bill, before the Republicans got such a long chance to grind it down. He finally gets “fired up” yesterday, for Christ’s sake!

  447. 447.

    chopper

    jesus, purity trolls like you guys would have derailed social security and medicare right from the start. ‘it’ll never work! it just puts money in the wrong hands! i have proof! read this pamphlet…’.

    just STFU and PTDB already. and go away.

  448. 448.

    slightly_peeved

    Why, since these policies are sold through state-based exchanges – it will be the State Insurance Commissioners. .

    Wrong.

    Despite the exchanges being state based, the Secretary drafts regulations and determines penalties – see for example s.2718(b)(3) of the manager’s amendment.

    The new appeals process that must be implemented by the insurance companies is overseen by the Federal Secretary of Labor – s.2719(2)(B) of the manager’s amendment.

    Go through the bills, and search for “The Secretary”, and you’ll find all the areas where aspects of the exchange are determined at the Federal level. In most areas, it is federally managed. Where the states enforce aspects of it, they do so at the direct behest of the Secretary of HHS. It is far more a federally managed system than a state managed system.

  449. 449.

    Lyssophobe

    Why quit reading? You were a shit-headed republican once, now you just call yourself something different. Big whoop.

  450. 450.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @reality-based: Like i said before, you also don’t understand how federal mandates to states to regulate an industry works. They don’t just “let” states do what they want, especially when billions in tax payer subsidies is in play. This bill has basic standards or minimum standards, it is comprehensive in that states will be given a period of time to pass their own laws that meet the new mandated rules, they will be given a period of time to do this, and the feds will enforce the rules in the meantime, then after will monitor what states do. Until the regs are Published in the Federal Register, we don’t know exactly how this will be done, but that is the basic template.

    For the feds to undertake complete enforcement itself , or what’s called primacy, would create a ginormous new fed beaurocracy and drive up the overall cost of the bill. As far as court cases go, having federal law back up your claims with specific requirements for companies to behave makes it a whole lot better for plaintiffs to win lawsuits than what we have now.

    This bill, and why people fought for it to be comprehensive does bring the federal government into the game with mandates to states and companies to behave in certain ways, and establishes a basic regulatory framework and watchdogs on the federal lever that has the feds involved directly with states and companies who get huge amounts of taxpayer monies. Now there are strings attached, where before, subsidies just went to companies piece meal with little government oversight.

  452. 452.

    madmatt

    still a punk sell out bitch to the corporate overlords! Do tell, whats to stop the premiums from going up, certainly nothing in the bill, wheres the enforcement, not in the bill, $30BILLION to ins co’s thats in the bill, and they get to take 30% off the top before they start even pretending to have to do something.

  453. 453.

    Keith G

    @ General E T Stuck

    Like i said before, you also don’t understand how federal mandates to states to regulate an industry works.

    I think there is a lot that is either not understood or not cared about by a few how have commented here. I especially loved how in the face of a staggering shortage of nurses, Mclaren thinks nurses are over paid and wants to cut their income.

    At that point, I gave up.

  455. 455.

    sparky the self-puncher

    @BTD: if you are here today, i can say i tried teh google and found nothing. i’m not contesting your point but for those of us who are search challenged,how about a hint?

    @Quiddity: yes, that’s one likely scenario, imo. another is the collapse of employer-sponsored health plans when they are taxed, which they will have to be when either (A) the AMT generates a real revolt and/or (B) the US runs out of goodwill to buy USTs. if it comes down to it, the empire will finance war any way possible, because it’s an even bigger sector of the economy than health care.

    either way, imo the upshot of the current plan is that it will stave off the inevitable for a few years until the bill for paying for the uninsured comes due. but, overall, i agree with you that in essence the shibboleth of free market management of a public good will not die until it collapses under its own falsehood, kinda like the soviet union.

  456. 456.

    sparky the self-puncher

    @General Egali Tarian Stuck: well, yes. but where you and i part ways (on this point) is in what appears to be your assumption that those regulations will be anything other than a floor that is is laughably useless as far as health care goes. i really see no basis for thinking so given the (a) the pressure on the regulatory drafters and (b) the general ideological bent towards skimpy regulation. it’s not as if there is much movement towards improved regulation in any other sector of the economy that has an oversight component *cough* UST *cough* Fed.

    if there is something else you have in mind that i am not aware of i would be happy to look at it.

  457. 457.

    sparky the self-puncher

    @sparky the self-puncher: for those of you who want to assault me for ignorance of some sort, in this comment i meant “fully taxed as income”.

    the above assumes anyone is still here rather than waiting for GG to return in a different thread :P

  458. 458.

    General Egali Tarian Stuck

    @sparky the self-puncher: By your reasoning sparky, any attempt at reform would be pointless because the federal government is either corrupt or inept at regulating any industry. Even if Jane Hamsher wrote the bill with a PO, or even single payer, it would still be the federal government administering it or oversighting it. There is no perfect pony, or separate or more efficient government other than the one we have. You do the best you can with the possibilities you have and live life a day at a time, and the fighting for better things is never over. That’s how true progressives see the world.

  459. 459.

    Uloborus

    Sigh. Guys, if you want to dismiss everything good as something that won’t be enforced and won’t happen, you can reduce pretty much any regulation attempt of any kind into a giveaway to the industries. You are cherry-picking your reality.

    And yet, the government has successfully regulated industries over and over for the last two hundred years.

    Now pardon me, I’m leaving for another thread, because you really can’t argue with people who have actively integrated that tactic into their logical style. I suggest the rest of you do the same. Nothing you say can convince them, because they just have to apply the same standard to your arguments.

    I do want to thank you, General. I already knew that it was silly to declare that things wouldn’t be enforced just because the enforcement mechanism wasn’t obviously listed. That’s what we have an executive arm for. It was really informative to have someone explain some of those mechanisms, though.

  460. 460.

    Mike Lamb

    @Keith G:

    I also found that part about “over-paid” nurses interesting. My nursing friend would find it interesting as well…

  461. 461.

    Evinfuilt

    Firebaggers want millions of people to stay uninsured just so they can be sure Insurance companies don’t make more money.

    Yup, that’s “progressive”;

    Pass the fucking Bill!! Save lives.

  462. 462.

    Glen Tomkins

    @375

    Okay, so who’s going to enforce, say, the MLR restrictions? As a former regulator, I’m sure you know that laws don’t write their own regulations, and then don’t enforce those regulations themselves. Does the package being debated set up some vast new bureaucracy to do that? Do you have any idea what that would entail?

    Remember, the MLR doesn’t just include the industry’s profit margin, it includes the industry’s operating expenses as well. So, in order to imagine that this idea of holding the industry to 85%, or 80%, or any number at all, is not just pure window-dressing (In this case, this totally non-serious idea was tagged on to limit the costs for CBO scoring purposes. The proponents needed the bill scored at low cost, so they just assumed premiums derived with a favorable MLR, however practically unobtainable that might be.) that no one actually intends to implement, you have to imagine that the government is going to, not only oversee the industry’s books closely enough to not have to take pure BS from them on what their MLR is, but to actually tell the industry what sort of profit margin it is to be allowed, and further, what sort of operating expense margin it is to be allowed. Now, under this new regime this package would create, the industry would still be responsible for holding down costs. It’s the only thing the insurance industry, notionally, contributes, to the system. It costs money to do the things the industry does to (notionally) hold down costs. The government is going to dictate to private enterprises (notionally) competing against each other to hold down costs more effectively, what they can spend money on to hold down costs and do their job? Really? You think the political will is going to be there, for all the years it will take to complete the regulatory process and start enforcing this turkey, to hold to that line of having the govt dictate to these corporations what level of operating expense they need to hold down costs most effectively? Jeez, if we had the political will to actually enforce such a system, which is basically what they do have the political will to do in France and Holland, then we would easily have the political will to just go whole hog for Single Payer, because it takes less political will to do the latter.

    The same reasoning applies to all the do-gooder features of this package. Every one of them would raise the costs of the industry, make it do things that will decrease their revenues or increase their expenses. The industry will have to raise its prices to cover the shortfall created by these do-gooder mandates, and those premium increases will only accelerate the death spiral the industry is in. The size of the bailout we the people will have to provide the industry will only grow. We either force people who have looked at what the industry has to offer and rejected it, to buy the product anyway, or we subsidize them for the difference between what they would be willing and able to pay, and what the industry is charging.

    Sure, people, once given an entitlement, will persist in trying to actually obtain it. But that reasoning applies to the people whose premiums will go up if the do-gooder provisions are enforced effectively, and these people who have insurance are the ones who actually vote. The politics of the system this package would produce would see the industry stabilizing premiums for the already insured, the people who vote, only insofar as it can shunt the people who can’t afford insurance, because of poverty or pre-existing conditions, into a heavily tax-payer subsidized segment of the system, a segment that will quickly and ruthlessly be stigmatized as a welfare program. We all know the half-life of welfare programs. This one won’t cut its first check, but will be overtaken by Darwinian politics before it gets out of the regulatory cycle.

  463. 463.

    Glen Tomkins

    @376

    A feature, not a bug

    It would be a good thing, a wonderful by-product of this crisis in health care financing, if it resulted in a huge change in personnel in our legislature. Even if that were the way we get to Single Payer, and we have to wait for another election cycle, as I point out, once we do get to Medicare for All, it could be functioning the afternoon of the day it’s signed. Anything else we do has an ungodly lead time.

    But we don’t need new Congresscritters to do this. Get the ones we have frightened enough, and then present them with a clear path out of the crisis, and they will rise to the occasion. With very few exceptions, the Founders were an unpromising lot, right up until the time when the need to break with the mother country became inescapably clear. Then they did what needed to be done. When the industry collapses completely, and, the rate increases we’re seeing tell me we’re really there already, our wonderfully passive and inertial Congresscritters, God bless ’em, will have no choice but do something. Medicare for All will be the only thing for them to do, so that’s what they’ll do. The Founders had the military might of that day’s sole superpower to deal with, our Congresscritters just have to screw up the courage to stare down lobbyists. It’s not as if there still won’t be plenty of other industries to dun for campaign contributions after the health insurance industry is dead.

Comments are closed.